Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

Come on guys, rules are rules! No-Fly Zone means just that. Mistakes are
made but don't discount the mistake.

How many IFR pilots in the group would tell the controller....thanks for
Clearing me for the approach ILS 18 but I think I'll just land on rwy 36
because the rules don't apply to me.

Steve

"smf" wrote in message


Come on guys, rules are rules! No-Fly Zone means just that. Mistakes
are made but don't discount the mistake.

Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart or
NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights - even by
GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a "no-fly zone"
around DC.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart
or
NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

3/2126 PART 4 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WASHINGTON DC. 5. PRIOR TO OPERATING
THE AIRCRAFT IN THIS ADIZ, THE FLIGHT CREW OBTAINS A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER
CODE FROM ATC; 6. THE AIRCRAFT''S TRANSPONDER CONTINUOUSLY TRANSMITS THE ATC
ISSUED DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE WHILE THE AIRCRAFT IS OPERATING IN THIS
ADIZ; 7. PRIOR TO OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT IN THE DC ADIZ, PILOTS MUST FILE
THEIR FLIGHT PLAN WITH AN AFSS; MUST ACTIVATE THEIR FLIGHT PLAN PRIOR TO
DEPARTURE OR ENTERING THE DC ADIZ; AND CLOSE THEIR FLIGHT PLANS UPON LANDING
OR LEAVING THE DC ADIZ. B. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY THE U.S. MILITARY, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND AEROMEDICAL FLIGHTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PART II A. PARAGRAPH 7. PART III. THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES APPLY WITHIN THE
WASHINGTON DC METROPOLITAN FRZ. A. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE FAA
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE AND THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ALL PARTS 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135, 137
FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON D.C. METROPOLITAN
FRZ. B. THESE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO DOD, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR
AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC AND ARE
DISPLAYING AN ATC ASSIGNED DISCRETE TRANSPONDER BEACON CODE. END PART 4 OF 4
WIE UNTIL UFN

call it what you will, they shouldn't have been there.

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights - even
by
GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a "no-fly zone"
around DC.

Routinely? c'mon.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Mike W." wrote in message


3/2126 PART 4 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS
...
call it what you will, they shouldn't have been there.

No, they shouldn't have been there, but that does *not* mean the ADIZ or FRZ
is a "no-fly zone". Show me the part of that NOTAM that says "no flight is
permitted".

It's a two-layer airspace restriction: The larger Air Defense
Identification Zone and an inner Flight Restricted Zone. Flights -
even by GA aircraft - routinely fly in both zones. There is *not* a
"no-fly zone" around DC.

Routinely? c'mon.

Yes! Routinely. Even flight instruction from the DC-3.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Mike W. wrote:
"John T" wrote in message
m...

Sorry, but this is stepping on a raw nerve. Show me any navigation chart

or

NOTAM establishing a "no-fly zone" around Washington.

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

Ron Natalie wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

They show the ADIZ and FRZ, but not a "no-fly zone". A "no-fly zone" is
what we imposed on Iraq. Prohibited airspace, like P-40, could be
considered a "no-fly zone", but neither the ADIZ nor FRZ are such entities.

Allowing media outlets to perpetuate the myth of a "no-fly zone" gives the
non-flying public the impression that no planes are allowed in the area.
This is like the common impression of "stall". *We* don't need to fuel that
misperception by calling the ADIZ/FRZ a "no-fly zone" as earlier posters
have done here.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.


They show the ADIZ and FRZ, but not a "no-fly zone". A "no-fly zone" is
what we imposed on Iraq. Prohibited airspace, like P-40, could be
considered a "no-fly zone", but neither the ADIZ nor FRZ are such entities.

Except for the few of us who have jumped through the hoops to get
cleared for FRZ operations, the FRZ is a "no-fly zone". Even the
IRAQ no fly zone is only prohibited to UNAUTHORIZED (i.e. Iraqi)
airplanes.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Except for the few of us who have jumped through the hoops to get
cleared for FRZ operations, the FRZ is a "no-fly zone". Even the
IRAQ no fly zone is only prohibited to UNAUTHORIZED (i.e. Iraqi)
airplanes.

You just defined "restricted" airspace, not a "no-fly zone".

I'm fine with media outlets and others defining this as restricted (feel
free to add descriptors like "heavily", "highly", "tightly controlled",
etc.) airspace. This is *not* a "no-fly zone".

Semantics? Maybe. But do this: Find a non-flying, non-aviation buff
friend of yours and ask them what comes to mind when you say "no-fly zone".
Do the same for "restricted airspace".

My experience has been that "no-fly zone" implies *no* planes except perhaps
military enforcers. Restricted means "permission required" - an accurate
description of the FRZ and to a lesser extent the ADIZ.

My point here is we pilots have enough difficulties with the ignorant
public. We shouldn't be perpetuating inaccurate descriptions of the
airspace around here - and "no-fly zone" is not accurate.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:46:04 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

The New York sectional uses the same white background circle to show
what area would be in the 30NM expanded TFR around ENE when activated.