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 =----

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?

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,

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

On 22 Jul 2005 12:37:53 -0700, wrote in
. com::

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


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.


If Mica's bill truly only penalizes pilots, and not anyone responsible
for the ADIZ violation, it is patently unbalanced.

[...]

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.

My lack of respect for the current administration is no secret. I
believe they have put us and generations to come in extreme debt to
avenge the attempted assassination of the current president's father
by waging an unwinable war under false pretext that will last for
decades. After all, we could have just let the Arabs fight among
themselves, and used all those hundreds of billions of dollars to
bolster our lagging educational system, so that the future generations
of this nation would be a credit to our forefathers.... I further
believe that the current administration's arrogant hubris toward
constitutional guarantees, is a far more grave offence than that over
which president Clinton was impeached. I'll end this unfinished
diatribe by saying, I am ashamed to be represented in world politics
by the likes of the current regime and its inarticulate, smirking,
dolt...

You're doing your own argument a disservice by making the statement,
doubly so because of how gratuitous the insult is in this context.

You'll have to explain that to me; I'm afraid I don't see exactly
which context you mean.

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.

Perhaps you are correct, but somehow I want to believe Kerry would
have had the guts to oppose ineffective security policy dictated by
those shortsighted folks who implemented the DC ADIZ. At least he can
relate; he is currently an active GA pilot.

That's determined by the professional bureaucrats who really run DC regardless
of which stuffed shirt is sitting in the Oval Office.

If the leader of the free world is powerless to oppose those
professional bureaucrats, we are in more trouble than I care to
imagine.

[...]

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.

Call me an idealist, but I'd like to think that the possibility of
reason and intellect instead of hysteria and doltish reactions are
still possible among our nations leaders. Obviously you have given in
to the status quo.


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.

Congressional legislation that addresses a single case is
inappropriate at best, and surely a breach of public trust by our
lawmakers. The Schiavo autopsy proved that. This nation's leaders
are out of control, and I find it appalling, and will openly oppose
what I feel is unreasonable at every opportunity.


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.

While it may currently be better than average, it reeks of
unprofessionism. Must we continue to accept the erosion of
congressional dignity and statesmanship without voicing an opposing
word? That won't make the current situation improve.

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.

I understand your argument, but it is predicated on the assumption
that the DC ADIZ is necessary. That hasn't been demonstrated to my
knowledge.

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.

As the months and years go by, I expect to see additional and more
frequent terrorist activity. Like Mr. Blair recently intoned, the way
to deflect the intended impact of the terrorists' acts is to go about
our business as usual. In my opinion, all this contraconstitutional
activity in the name of security only serves to demonstrate to the
terrorists, that they are winning, and very little to actually enhance
our security.

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.

Perhaps the common man doesn't understand that he's being unjustly
manipulated by inept bureaucrats with a hidden agenda.

This isn't a fight we can win right now.

That may be so, but we _surely_ won't win it by sitting on our hands
and stifling our outrage at bureaucratic inanity.

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.

If hysteria is given free reign, we will not like the outcome.

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.

I understand what you are saying, but your assessment fails to
comprehend the true facts:

1. 2,000 square miles of the busiest airspace in the world
was arbitrarily declared restricted.

2. The perimeter of this restricted airspace is unmarked by
discernable ground reference points.

3. The current penalty for violating that restricted airspace
is the possibility of being shot down by our nation's military.

4. ...

Items 1 and 2 are guaranteed to trap a lot of pilots who are not
bumbling morons as is born out by the statistics.


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.

I would characterize our government's placing its citizen pilots in
the cross hairs of our military munitions as being not only a "fairly
stiff" penalty, but down right egregious.

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.