FAA: 157 airspace violations since 9/11

"Morgans" wrote in message ...

I would say that if you fly arount those areas, you should get., and use
GPS......or steer a
wide berth.

I agree with Jay. A few are going to screw it up for all of us, if no
changes are made.

I could be mistaken, but I think Ron's point was that the area
in question is a pure "paper boundry", where there are very
few natural landmarks to guide the pilot. And GPS isn't infalliable.
The expanded TFR isn't necessarily in the database as restricted
airspace. Its centroid may not be in there as a waypoint. And
while the savvy GPS-using pilot can add both, depending upon the
model of GPS it may not be easy to display the addition while
using the GPS to navigate. So if you're navigating by GPS, you
may need to figure out the boundry by some other means (visually
or by VORs).

I concur that changes need to be made, but I think some of the
needed changes involve charting and database changes, or changes
to the way TFRs are defined to make them easier to identify
visually. Unfortunately, even pilot interest groups hesitate to
lobby for such changes because they're afraid that charting,
database, and boundry changes would simply codify the "temporary"
TFRs and make them more likely to become permanent.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:

I could be mistaken, but I think Ron's point was that the area
in question is a pure "paper boundry", where there are very
few natural landmarks to guide the pilot. And GPS isn't infalliable.

Neither are the pilots of the interceptors, nor the ATC personel, but if *they*
make a mistake, it's still the GA pilot who gets charged. The last time this
came up, it became apparent that many, if not most, of the violations were not
the fault of a GA pilot.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."