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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:45:04 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
I received this e-mail CC explaination/clarification from AOPA: I seriously doubt that she is happy that you just posted her email address so publically. Chances are high, her spam count is going to go through the roof in the coming months. If you must post letters, please be respectful of others and hide their email address. Not doing so is considered to be very rude, especially if you did it without their permission. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Larry, you've convinced me you're an idiot. The proposed rule gives back
more than it takes. With the proposed new restricted area limited to 20 days of use per year, ZLA/SoCal or LONGRIFLE will undoubtedly honor all requests to transit the area. For those pilots with such disdain for talking to ATC to obtain clearance through the airspace, go the inland route or better yet, stay home--you're a hazard to the rest of us. As for your suggestion that the MOAs and proposed restricted area be replaced with TFRs, that'd be great, but the reality is that the area around Pendleton is almost always busy with military traffic of all types, where keeping on one's toes is a good idea for all concerned. Taking away the MOAs and restricted area might tend to lull one into complacency, precisely where complacency should be avoided. I support the rule change. Matt Johnson KMYF |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:43:03 GMT, "Matt Johnson"
wrote: Larry, you've convinced me you're an idiot. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Was there a flaw in the _facts_ I presented as there appeared to be in those presented by AOPA's Heidi Williams? Or are you just incapable of separating your emotional nature from rational discourse? The proposed rule gives back more than it takes. We disagree. The NPRM contains language that replaces two MOAs with an even larger (in terms of cubic area) Restricted Area. That seems to contradict your assertion above. Please state how you arrived at the erroneous belief you espouse above? With the proposed new restricted area limited to 20 days of use per year, ZLA/SoCal or LONGRIFLE will undoubtedly honor all requests to transit the area. All requests? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Won't ATC deny Restricted Area transit requests during those 20 days? What of the other 90 days of planned military activity? If ATC were to grant _all_ transit requests through the proposed new Restricted Area, what useful purpose would it serve? For those pilots with such disdain for talking to ATC to obtain clearance through the airspace, go the inland route or better yet, stay home--you're a hazard to the rest of us. If talking to ATC were all that will be required to transit the proposed Restricted Area, that would be fine. But that is not the case. The area above 4,000' along the coast will require all VFR flights to obtain ATC permission to transit; currently that is not the case. Currently one can over fly Camp Pendleton at 8,000' without ATC contact. If the proposed new Restricted Area is established as published, it raises that floor to 11,000'. It's another military airspace grab. Let the military relinquish some of the 50% of NAS they currently "own." As for your suggestion that the MOAs and proposed restricted area be replaced with TFRs, that'd be great, but the reality is that the area around Pendleton is almost always busy with military traffic of all types, where keeping on one's toes is a good idea for all concerned. First you reassure me that the military will only be using the proposed new Restricted Area 20 days a year. Then you tell me the area is "almost always busy with military traffic of all types." You seem to contradict yourself, and you definitely fail to mention the other 90 nighttime periods of proposed military activity. That leads me to believe you may have some vested interest in seeing the proposed Restricted Area established. What is the source of your bias? Taking away the MOAs and restricted area might tend to lull one into complacency, precisely where complacency should be avoided. Are you able to cite any past incidents regarding the San Onofre MOAs in which a Restricted Area would have enhanced flight safety? Do you have any factual _information_ regarding complacent pilots causing a hazard in the MOAs? Please provide some evidence that supports your contention, or risk having your argument appear to be a straw man. I support the rule change. Why? Do you have any _rational_ reason for supporting the proposed new Restricted Area on California's coast? How will the proposed new Restricted Area positively impact the high volume of flights daily on V-23? How have the military managed to operate without the proposed new Restricted Area for so many decades? Matt Johnson KMYF While I welcome your input on this issue, it seems a little short of _accurate_ facts, and long on emotional opinion. PS: As a friendly aside from one airman to another, name calling is often the last desperate resort of a debater who lacks reasonable support for his views. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |