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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:06:32 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in HUNIe.3569$_t.1366@okepread01:: Ha good luck with that request. Umm.. I see what you mean. Disappointing. :-( When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce "clutter". moo |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06:: 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. If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted. 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. That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS: ... the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security requested that the FAA Administrator take action to codify permanently current aviation flight restrictions over the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area to support their continuing mission to protect national assets in the National Capital Region. So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input borders on meaningless. Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions: General Discussion of the Proposal After the events of September 11, 2001, Congress and the President tasked government agencies to increase the protection of the United States and its interests. Congress established the TSA and tasked it with protecting the security of our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Additionally, Congress established the Department of Homeland Security, in order to centralize the administration of the country’s security efforts. For the past two years, the FAA has been working closely with the DoD and DHS to draft security contingency plans to protect the American public, national assets, and operations in the National Airspace System. Some of the measures taken by the FAA include additional cockpit security for certain air carrier aircraft and temporary flight restrictions over special events (often at stadiums) that attract large numbers of people and may be seen as potential targets by terrorists. Since the seat of our nation’s government is in Washington, DC, flight restrictions were established immediately after September 11, 2001, and most remain in place. Establishing specific airspace for security reasons in the Washington, DC area is not a new practice. In 1938, by Executive Order 7910, the President reserved and set apart airspace for national defense, the public safety and other governmental purposes. Those airspace reservations were subsequently codified in 14 CFR part 73 as ‘‘prohibited areas.’’ Over the years, the size and dimensions of one of these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P–56), which is the airspace over and near the White House, has changed in response to world events. In accordance with 14 CFR 73.83, no person may operate an aircraft within a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted by the using agency. The action proposed in this notice does not modify P–56. That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention shoot-down authority. The FAA is aware that the flight restrictions imposed over the Washington DC Metropolitan Area have impacted, and will continue to impact some pilots in the area. However, government security officials believe that the proposed DC SFRA would enhance and strengthen the ability of DoD and DHS to protect the President, Cabinet members, the Congress and other assets in the capital region. There are the DOD and DHS again. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the threat of extremists launching an attack using aircraft still exists. It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively. Numerous reports continue to be received that demonstrate Al-Qa’ida’s enduring interest in aviation-related attacks. Thus, there is a continued need for aviation security vigilance. Intelligence reports indicate that terrorists continue to be interested in using general aviation aircraft as part of another attack on the U.S. or facilitation of activities since general aviation aircraft are readily available and relatively inexpensive. Also, though security measures at general aviation airports have improved, they are less stringent than those in place at many commercial airports. It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order. Overall and even though general aviation aircraft are generally smaller than those used in the 9/11 attack, the destructive potential of a small aircraft loaded with explosives may be significant. It should be noted that almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is comprised of aircraft that are relatively small. Aircraft in this segment of the industry range from homebuilt craft to large airliners. In addition, there are thousands of general aviation airports in the United States with varying degrees of security procedures implemented. So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional restrictions on GA in the future? We believe that as part of ensuring the security of the people, property and institutions in the Nation’s capital, and surrounding area, it is essential to know the intended route of flight of the aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a discrete transponder code, and to have automatic altitude reporting equipment on board the aircraft that transmits to ATC. Government officials believe that some types of aircraft operations (i.e., those conducted under parts 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should continue to be prohibited within 15 miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless specifically authorized by the FAA in consultation with the DoD and DHS. Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members of congress quaking in their boots. So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action other than endorsing "security". If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate the need for the NPRM. Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument. Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Morgans" wrote in message
"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 Hey Jim in Nobody Cares where, this is your only post in this thread. Couldn't even make on one-topic response, eh? moo |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Happy Dog" wrote: When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce "clutter". Define "clutter" -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message ... In article , "Happy Dog" wrote: When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce "clutter". Define "clutter" From this thread: I'm talking about radar screen clutter. Yes. I see no other rational reason for the DC ADIZ. and (subsequently from the same poster) My point was that the DC ADIZ's purpose most probably is to protect the innocent from lethal force. Comment: The contention (stated by a few posters here) that the OP is objecting to is that the ADIZ is unjustified, is unworkable and, thus, is little more than a political move to satisfy the uneducated, early-weaned emotionally underdeveloped populace that the government has, once again, taken over where mom and dad left off. It's a case of Transference, in the Freudian sense. Excuses are made, for the government, suggesting that this measure is necessary to protect pilots from themselves, solves an ATC workload problem etc. That these claims have been shown to lack in merit does nothing to dissuade the odd person from repeating them or claiming similar new ones. It's crap. moo |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters
care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a "chance?" Patrick student SPL aircraft structural mech "Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson wrote in euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06:: 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. If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted. 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. That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS: ... the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security requested that the FAA Administrator take action to codify permanently current aviation flight restrictions over the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area to support their continuing mission to protect national assets in the National Capital Region. So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input borders on meaningless. Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions: General Discussion of the Proposal After the events of September 11, 2001, Congress and the President tasked government agencies to increase the protection of the United States and its interests. Congress established the TSA and tasked it with protecting the security of our nation's transportation infrastructure. Additionally, Congress established the Department of Homeland Security, in order to centralize the administration of the country's security efforts. For the past two years, the FAA has been working closely with the DoD and DHS to draft security contingency plans to protect the American public, national assets, and operations in the National Airspace System. Some of the measures taken by the FAA include additional cockpit security for certain air carrier aircraft and temporary flight restrictions over special events (often at stadiums) that attract large numbers of people and may be seen as potential targets by terrorists. Since the seat of our nation's government is in Washington, DC, flight restrictions were established immediately after September 11, 2001, and most remain in place. Establishing specific airspace for security reasons in the Washington, DC area is not a new practice. In 1938, by Executive Order 7910, the President reserved and set apart airspace for national defense, the public safety and other governmental purposes. Those airspace reservations were subsequently codified in 14 CFR part 73 as ''prohibited areas.'' Over the years, the size and dimensions of one of these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P-56), which is the airspace over and near the White House, has changed in response to world events. In accordance with 14 CFR 73.83, no person may operate an aircraft within a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted by the using agency. The action proposed in this notice does not modify P-56. That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention shoot-down authority. The FAA is aware that the flight restrictions imposed over the Washington DC Metropolitan Area have impacted, and will continue to impact some pilots in the area. However, government security officials believe that the proposed DC SFRA would enhance and strengthen the ability of DoD and DHS to protect the President, Cabinet members, the Congress and other assets in the capital region. There are the DOD and DHS again. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the threat of extremists launching an attack using aircraft still exists. It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively. Numerous reports continue to be received that demonstrate Al-Qa'ida's enduring interest in aviation-related attacks. Thus, there is a continued need for aviation security vigilance. Intelligence reports indicate that terrorists continue to be interested in using general aviation aircraft as part of another attack on the U.S. or facilitation of activities since general aviation aircraft are readily available and relatively inexpensive. Also, though security measures at general aviation airports have improved, they are less stringent than those in place at many commercial airports. It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order. Overall and even though general aviation aircraft are generally smaller than those used in the 9/11 attack, the destructive potential of a small aircraft loaded with explosives may be significant. It should be noted that almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is comprised of aircraft that are relatively small. Aircraft in this segment of the industry range from homebuilt craft to large airliners. In addition, there are thousands of general aviation airports in the United States with varying degrees of security procedures implemented. So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional restrictions on GA in the future? We believe that as part of ensuring the security of the people, property and institutions in the Nation's capital, and surrounding area, it is essential to know the intended route of flight of the aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a discrete transponder code, and to have automatic altitude reporting equipment on board the aircraft that transmits to ATC. Government officials believe that some types of aircraft operations (i.e., those conducted under parts 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should continue to be prohibited within 15 miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless specifically authorized by the FAA in consultation with the DoD and DHS. Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members of congress quaking in their boots. So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action other than endorsing "security". If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate the need for the NPRM. Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument. Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:33:29 GMT, Jose
wrote in : : The likelyhood that an aircraft flying around Washington DC is a threat is miniscule. I am comfortable continuing with this assumption. That's because you don't live and work there. :-) The DC ADIZ is protection against an imaginary monster in the closet. While that may be true of the FRZ, the DC ADIZ is protection against a very real monster in an F-16. What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ? Class E and class B airspace, the way it was in 2000. That sounds good to me. The cat is out of the bag. Just as you cannot reasonably defend yourself from being hit by gunfire while walking down the street, we cannot reasonably defend ourselves from having our own high-energy devices turned against us. There are too many of them, manned by too few people, too low on the pay scale. You'd need armed guards around every gas station's storage tank valve, escorts for every delivery truck in the city, and a listening watch on the entire internet and cellphone network. Right. Effective security renders the system unusable. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:21:24 GMT, Jose
wrote in :: Bill Maher recently expressed the opinion, that crashing airliners laden with hundreds of people was a faith based initiative. ... and faith is not restricted to Islamics. Your statement specifically implicated Islamic terrorists, and to do so is a mistake - both strategic, tactical, and moral. I suppose you're right. I was just trying suggest a more effective way of outing the terrorists in our midst. I'm not familiar with Bill Maher's statement, but just because he said it doesn't mean I agree with it. He's the anti-Rush Limbaugh, and a lot more humorous. So if it's not possible to stop ideas, what action is appropriate? Acceptance. Accept the fact that freedom cuts both ways. Support freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of flight - for enemies as well as for friends. The measure of a man is not how he treats his friends, but how he treats his enemies. A great nation leads by example. Now that PM Blair is deporting those that preach suicide bombing in Britain, I suppose it can no longer be called _Great_ Britain. :-) Now don't misconstrue my words as if I were saying that we should let terrorists get away with their actions - no, those who commit vile acts ought to be hunted down and taken to task. Unfortunately, about all that remains of them is a slimy goo and fragments. :-) It would be much more effective to some how take them to task before they detonate themselves. But we should MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT go treating everyone as a potential terrorist, subject to being shot down unless they can prove they are good. Are you referring to the DC ADIZ there? You talk about the ADIZ as being a way to prevent innocents from being shot down. There's another way. Just don't shoot. I agree completely. I am in favor of eliminating it. I was just attempting to define its intended purpose. I'm just talking about Muslims coming forward of their own volition and exposing those in their ranks they believe to be terrorists. That would be nice. It would also be nice if Christians did the same for those who bomb abortion clinics, and if the pilot community reported those they believe to be dangerous aviators to the FAA, and if taxpayers did the same for tax cheats and the IRS. Actually, I believe it may be illegal not to inform if you have evidence of criminal acts. If every neighbor is looking over the shoulder of every other neighbor, we'll have a much safer society, no? It's also really great way to "get even" with somebody who did you wrong... just report them as a suspected {whatever}, and let the justice system sort it all out. There's a downside to any policy, but I'd prefer there be a myriad of false reports than a single fellow airman downed by mistake. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in :: In article , "Happy Dog" wrote: When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address my point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to reduce "clutter". Define "clutter" In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion' would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.' |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:57:05 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in :: It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a "chance?" That's a constructive suggestion. How would you word the petition, and what sort of argument would you suggest we use to persuade voters to sign it? At the moment however, there is a rapidly waning 30-day window of opportunity to present opposing arguments to the FAA's NPRM. I was hoping someone cared enough about the issue to draft some coherent opposing views, and we could refine the ideas and submit them he http://dms.dot.gov/submit/ |
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 |