On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that

It's more of a "we think we want to do this". Unfortunately they do
have the power to implement and enforce, but that does not mean they
determined it was "needed".

determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
passed.

Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who

Wellll... I don't think even that is a valid argument in that even the
AOPA pres, who teaches about the thing, caught caught when they
changed the thing while he was in flight. So even knowing them
thoroughly is no guarantee.

don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.

It could as easily happen (and has) to an airliner, or some one in GA
that is well trained in the things. GA planes are not the only ones
making the violations. Maybe that's why they want to add anti-missile
defenses to airliners.

Training for any aspect of flying is a good idea, but mandated for
something as irregular as the DC TFR is not a good idea until they
make the thing predictable and if it becomes predictable then the
training becomes unnecessary. Until then only real mandate is to
maintain contact with ATC and make sure they keep you apprised of the
ADIZ. Even that carries no assurance. On an IFR flight plan I've
been vectored in front of traffic, vectored for traffic avoidance and
forgotten, mistakenly given a circle to land in front of departing
traffic so I don't have a lot of faith in the system keeping me where
I need to be with something like an ADIZ that keeps changing shape and
size.

Like any other phase of flight all the pilot can do is become familiar
with the airspace, get an up-to-date briefing just before departure
and maintain contact with ATC. It is necessary to know intercept
procedures now, but that is true no mater where you fly in the US.
That is the most the pilot can do and the way the ADIZ is handled
there are still going to be violations from both commercial and GA.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



But for

Roger