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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Report: More than 3,400 airspace violations since 9/11
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/res....ap/index.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:08:44 -0400, Dave Butler x@yy wrote in
:: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/res....ap/index.html Quotes from the CNN article: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilots who fly into restricted airspace could face fines of $100,000 and a mandatory license suspension of two to five years, according to a key lawmaker. Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, said on Thursday that he would file a bill this fall to increase the penalty for pilots who fly where they shouldn't. 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. 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? The report noted that airspace violations are almost all inadvertent. If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless. 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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:08:44 -0400, Dave Butler x@yy wrote in :: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/21/res....ap/index.html Quotes from the CNN article: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilots who fly into restricted airspace could face fines of $100,000 and a mandatory license suspension of two to five years, according to a key lawmaker. Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House aviation subcommittee, said on Thursday that he would file a bill this fall to increase the penalty for pilots who fly where they shouldn't. 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. 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? The report noted that airspace violations are almost all inadvertent. If so, Mica's proposed bill will be virtually meaningless. 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? 135, airliners, |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:40:04 -0400, Margy wrote in
:: 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? 135, airliners, Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace violations? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:40:04 -0400, Margy wrote in :: 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? 135, airliners, Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace violations? no, I'm saying they are probably broken down by aircraft and ignoring ATC as the entire flight is the responsibility of the pilot (even if they vector you over the mall it's your job to say "you want me to do WHAT?". I'm not saying it's right or fair or anything like that. Margy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. IMHO the best we could hope for would be to reduce the size of the DC ADIZ or to have procedures evolve to be more like Class B without the requirement for ground-filed flight plans and such. 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. 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. The more that people continue screwing up, the worse it will get for the rest of us. -cwk. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote: On 21 Jul 2005 18:33:34 -0700, wrote in .com:: Larry Dighera wrote: snip 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? I don't agree that it's unbalanced. More on this below. 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. Some phrases are markers for things. When I hear someone refer to the President as "Baby Bush" I can hear the sound of an axe grinding in the background. It's the same as when people on the right talked about how Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed. You're doing your own argument a disservice by making the statement, doubly so because of how gratuitous the insult is in this context. AFAICT, GA is totally bipartisan in both friends and enemies and I doubt the election of John Kerry would have made one whit of difference in the operation of the DC ADIZ. That's determined by the professional bureaucrats who really run DC regardless of which stuffed shirt is sitting in the Oval Office. Again you fail to answer my question: How will it be determined if the pilot's action was deliberate or inadvertent? Throw him or her in the Potomac and see if they float. 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. Politics, they say, is the art of the possible. The way I see it is that in this case we have the option of half a loaf in the form of Mica's somewhat unenforceable bill, or nothing in the form of something foisted on us by Chuck Schumer et. al. that makes this look like a holiday in Monaco by comparison. Wonderful. Another bit of legislation about as appropriate as that sparked by the Terry Schivo case. I fail to see what Terri Schiavo has to do with this besides being a random outburst of your animus toward the right wing, which, I daresay, does more to discredit your arguments than anything I could say. 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 failed to address it because it's a red herring. A bill that addresses 88% of a problem is better than average. 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. It seems to me that the onus is on you to show that it's not pilots' fault something like 75% of the time. Even if 30% of total incidents are due to other causes, that still leaves us on the hook for the overwhelming majority. 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? Because a half hour ago I got off the subway in Boston and they were announcing at each stop for people to look around them to see if there were any unattended packages left behind. In NYC they're doing random bag checks on people. If they were to drop the ADIZ there would likely be a huge outcry from the public about the inconveniences being borne by the common man while rich pilots fly at will with no restrictions. This isn't a fight we can win right now. 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. Like I said, you're simply asking too much of the current environment. To the extent that any improvement is possible, I would offer that it depends upon us as pilots demonstrating that we're not bumbling morons, which is kind of what the current numbers suggest to the people making the decisions. In any event, I doubt seriously that a $100,000.00 fine would have prevented Sheaffer from committing his fiasco. Well, we do agree on something. It would however be better for us as regards news coverage and public sentiment, to hear that the potential peanlty for that kind of screwup is fairly stiff. Best, -cwk. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:26:54 -0400, Margy wrote in
:: Are you saying that ATC has never been responsible for airspace violations? no, I'm saying they are probably broken down by aircraft and ignoring ATC as the entire flight is the responsibility of the pilot (even if they vector you over the mall it's your job to say "you want me to do WHAT?". I'm not saying it's right or fair or anything like that. If I recall correctly, recently there was a Kentucky polition's flight nearly shot down in the DC ADIZ due to ATC errors. http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...printable.html The Finger On The Trigger, In D.C.... Fletcher's Flight Almost Shot Down... Of course, the hubbub in Washington centered around Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's near-fatal trip to Ronald Reagan's funeral on June 9. According to The Washington Post, unnamed sources reported that the military was on the verge of blasting Fletcher's King Air out of the Washington sky after it showed up as an unidentified aircraft on the monitors in the National Capital Region Control Center (NCRCC). But perhaps they were a bit shy of acquiring a lock on the target. As AVweb told you two weeks ago, a civilian contractor failed to notice the manual tracking tags attached to the radar image of Fletcher's transponder-less airplane and that triggered the evacuation of the Capitol building and the scrambling of F-16s. According to the Post, an F-16 was looking for the King Air but the pilot couldn't visually identify it because of cloud cover. Moments later, the plane began a normal approach to DCA and the military called off the attack. Fletcher told the Lexington Herald that he was originally told he was "milliseconds" from being shot down. The governor also claims that through the aftermath of the incident (those on board the plane were oblivious to the events around them until after they landed) his thoughts were not on his narrowly spared hide but on the way the incident would play in the media. "You don't want the state embarrassed for reasons beyond your control," he said. "The first few hours that concerned me more than anything. We are trying to build a good image in Kentucky." ..."Can't Happen Again" Says FAA The FAA claims it's learned from the incident. "We don't believe it can happen again," Linda Schuessler, vice president for system operations at the FAA, told the hearing. A direct feed from Washington-area air traffic control was to have been installed in the NCRCC. On June 9, the command post was getting a raw feed of radar images over the Internet and none of the manually added tags, like the one clearing the way for Fletcher's flight, were displayed. With the installation of the direct feed, the NCRCC staff will see exactly what controllers see. Aviation subcommittee chair Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) said he couldn't believe that kind of miscommunication could have occurred. "It is both alarming and unacceptable that in the two and a half years since September 11, the federal and local agencies involved in airspace control and security have still not resolved simple coordination, communication and training issues," he said. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association blamed the incident on staff shortages. In a statement, President John Carr said that because of a shortage of controllers, the ADIZ monitoring position is filled with civilian contractors. "The situation most likely would have been avoided had a fully trained and certified federal air traffic controller been in that chair instead of a contract employee," Carr said. The FAA has dismissed NATCA's claim, saying the contractor was properly qualified. |
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 |
FAA: 157 airspace violations since 9/11 | AJ | Piloting | 26 | January 6th 04 12:59 AM |
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 |