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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 22:23:54 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in :: It will take the larger group to make a difference in the ADIZ , not just a few of us. This is the first time the FAA has permitted comments on the security regulations governing this airspace; the previous times the FAA claimed that the emergency nature of the regulations permitted bypassing the comment process. It would be my hope, that logic an reason would prevail over political might in the FAA's decision process. Your statement makes the decision process appear like a vote instead. What would the FAA write in the resolution of this NPRM if their decision were entirely the result of political influence? |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:21:21 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in :: 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. Considering that international flights operated within the DC ADIZ, foreign pilots may not be aware of your proposed new class of airspace. 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. Please post a draft of your letters to your congressmen. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:39:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in :: Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit: 1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I can anticipate them in the letter itself? As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the FAA's reason for not adopting it: Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately— This alternative would provide immediate relief to these airports by removing security provisions and restoring former air traffic control procedures and air space configurations. Implementation of this alternative would facilitate the return of pilots who, for the sake of operating simplicity and reduced flying costs, relocated to other airports. This would be the least costly option. The FAA believes that the threat of terrorists using aircraft as missiles must be guarded against, and this option would not adequately achieve that goal. Conclusion: Rescinding these actions would increase the vulnerability and diminish the level of protection now in place to safeguard vital national assets located within the National Capital Region. This alternative is rejected because it would compromise the security of vital national assets and increase their vulnerability. 2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it make sense to make a petition out of it? I don't know. But my feeling is, that the more comments from different individuals the FAA receives that echo your point, the more credence it will carry. 3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read it and perhaps generate an action item? I don't see how it could hurt. At least it will make the general public aware of the NPRM. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it: [...] The FAA believes that the threat of terrorists using aircraft as missiles must be guarded against, and this option would not adequately achieve that goal. Conclusion: Rescinding these actions would increase the vulnerability and diminish the level of protection... Well, either they have already made their decision (and further noise is unnecessary even in what we considered a free state) or these are the points that need to be rebutted. Alas, without actual data (which is certainly classified) this will be difficult, as the response is guaranteed to be "petitioner is wrong because of {CLASSIFIED}." The NPRM contains the reasons for the decision that has already been made. Our only hope is that the decision hasn't actually already been made. 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. |
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 |