On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in
.com::

Larry Dighera wrote:

A legislator who understands how to write balanced laws would not
discriminate against pilots; he would penalize anyone found to be the
cause of the restricted airspace violation such as ATC personnel, etc.
This congressional prejudice against pilots reveals an inappropriate
attitude that prevails throughout the nation.

Pop quiz- Who said the following: "Anyone knows you could load into an
SUV or a U-Haul much more dangerous quantities of explosives or
biological materials than you can in a small airplane. We need to look
at a risk-based system and spend our money where it makes the most
sense. We can't close off general aviation in this country."

Congressman John Mica. There are not many guys in Washington who are
more on our side than him.

That's what I thought too.

you failed to address my point: Why isn't his proposed bill balanced?


Though pilots flew into the restricted zone over Washington more
than 1,600 times in 2003-04, only a few were penalized, Mica said.

Unintentional violations shouldn't receive severe penalties, he
said. But for those who deliberately disregard the rules, "I'm in
favor of throwing the book at them."

Just how does Representative Mica propose to determine if the
incursion was deliberate or inadvertent? Is he going to go to a
"higher source" like baby Bush did when deciding to invade, er
liberate Iraq?

Why don't you just get a big red marker and write "I AM A CRANK" across
your forehead? At least other people on the Internet wouldn't see it.

I'm disappointed by this response from you, sir. I have read several
of your articles posted to this newsgroup, and found them thoughtful,
informative and a very welcome relief from the creping chit chat often
found here. Your personal attack is beneath you.

Again you fail to answer my question: How will it be determined if the
pilot's action was deliberate or inadvertent?


The report noted that airspace violations are almost all
inadvertent.

If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless.

Have you considered that might be the point?

Yes. Actually I did. It might be a bone to through the journalists.
But it sends the wrong message in my opinion. Such an anti pilot bill
as proposed by Mica tacitly endorses the DC ADIZ instead of exposing
its utter uselessness in providing security.

It's called feel-good
legislation, like midnight basketball or school uniforms. Congress
passes the law, and next time a pilot busts the FRZ and makes the news,
everyone will say, "and the pilot could be subject to a fine of up to
$100,000," thus proving how seriously we take it. By the time it goes
to
court and is dismissed for lack of intent, the evening news will be
back to covering shark attacks.


Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that
sparked by the Terry Schivo case. I find myself loosing respect for
our nation's statesmen more and more as they pander to the hysterical
masses and ignore important issues. It's even more disappointing than
your personal attack. :-(

Pilots flying private planes are responsible for 88 percent of the
violations, and most occur in the eastern United States, where air
traffic is heavy and there's a lot of restricted airspace.

So who was responsible for the other 12% of airspace violations?

Who cares? 88% doesn't exactly make us look good.

The point you failed to address is, Mica's proposed bill fails to
address that other 12%. Is everything about how it looks? What of
substance and balanced legislation?

I'm done sympathizing with pilots who get caught in this dragnet. It's
been around for nearly four years now and there's just no excuse to not
be aware of it. With GPS's costing under $500 there's simply no reason
to bumble your way into this.

So you've examined every case and found no circumstances where the
bumbling pilot was not at fault? Come on, you know better than that.

IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC
ADIZ

If the purpose of the DC ADIZ is to de clutter the airspace
surrounding the FRZ, it's doubtful its size will be reduced unless
F-16s are in the air 24 hours a day.

Why can't we hope that the ADZ be dispensed with entirely?

or to have procedures evolve to be more like Class B without the
requirement for ground-filed flight plans and such.

That is the first constructive suggestion you've expressed.

So long as "weekend flyboys" are busting the rules regularly, the
donut-eaters making the rules are going to keep things the way they
are or even tighten the screws more.

Perhaps its time for someone with a bit more intellect to look at the
issue, and propose a security measure that might remotely have some
modicum of achieving its purpose, instead of permitting the
"dough-eaters" to foist their inane restrictions on the liberty of
this nation's citizens.

The current system is counter-productive but that doesn't excuse the
fact that a lot of pilots just can't seem to keep their **** together.

We're all human. Those pilots who blunder should be penalized
commensurate with their transgression. And the current
"counter-productive" system must be exposed publicly for the
ineffective, pseudo security it provides. And the policy of
evacuating all the government offices is so absurd as to be
reminiscent of the Keystone Cops. Please....

The more that people continue screwing up, the worse it will get for
the rest of us.

It sure will get worse for us if we continue to permit this useless DC
ADIZ to exist under the guise of security.

In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have
prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco.