On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:31:02 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 43a October 20, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

LOY HINTS AT GA SECURITY CHANGES

We'll see. I'm a bit worried about the "we will recommend that FAA engage
in appropriate rulemaking to permanently codify" part.

You'll have to speak to Ms. Rice about that. :-)

It would be nice if there were a voice that represented pilots in the
TSA group that will assess airspace restrictions for real security
value. Is it reasonable that our government should be permitted to
shut the users of the airspace out of its assessment process?
Wouldn't a reasonable person consider the fact that pilots would
likely be capable of providing valuable input? Just a thought ...

I suppose it'll be nice to have restricted airspace marked on the charts
at printing time, but I'm not really looking forward to our perma-TFRs
becoming permanent.

I don't know how congested the skies are in Washington, but within 100
nm of KLAX you're getting traffic calls all along your route. I
wonder if anyone has figured out at what point the "security measures"
compress VFR traffic into such cramped quarters, that it begins to
increase the rate of mishaps? Are there any quantified limits
established, or is it a TERPS thing?

I don't know any pilots who look foreward to airspace grabs.

Obviously the hope is that the perma-TFRs will actually go away. But I'm
not holding my breath.

Everyone want's things to go back the way they were in kinder and
gentler times long ago; not likely, IMO. Osama's strike at the icons
of our "invincable" nation have forever done their damage in the eyes
of the people of the world. All the king's horses, and all the kings
men, ...

[As I add TSA to my spell-check dictionary, I cringe.]