Washington DC airspace closing for good?

If that is the case, and politicians are great at figuring out who matters,
why should anyone in Washington listen to us?

Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots,
airline pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots, airline
pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.

Jose
--

They would be fired within ten minutes of refusing to fly there.

Mike
MU-2

They would be fired within ten minutes of refusing to fly there.

This is bad if other pilots fill in for them. But if NOBODY flies
there, then there is leverage.

I'm not holding my breath though.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:45:39 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::


Suppose pilots boycotted DC? Not us spam cans, but bizjet pilots,
airline pilots and such... the ones that carry the Important People.

Civil disobedience isn't the best route for us at this time in the
NPRM process. We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

Larry Dighera wrote:

We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so, our
efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those Congresscritters
who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they can't
put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06::

Larry Dighera wrote:

We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so, our
efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against
implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to
use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to
lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a
vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted.

I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those Congresscritters
who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they can't
put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.


That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make
the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS:


... the
Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security requested that the FAA
Administrator take action to codify
permanently current aviation flight
restrictions over the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area to support their
continuing mission to protect national
assets in the National Capital Region.

So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side
duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input
borders on meaningless.

Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions:

General Discussion of the Proposal
After the events of September 11,
2001, Congress and the President tasked
government agencies to increase the
protection of the United States and its
interests. Congress established the TSA
and tasked it with protecting the
security of our nation’s transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, Congress
established the Department of
Homeland Security, in order to
centralize the administration of the
country’s security efforts.

For the past two years, the FAA has
been working closely with the DoD and
DHS to draft security contingency plans
to protect the American public, national
assets, and operations in the National
Airspace System. Some of the measures
taken by the FAA include additional
cockpit security for certain air carrier
aircraft and temporary flight restrictions
over special events (often at stadiums)
that attract large numbers of people and
may be seen as potential targets by
terrorists.

Since the seat of our nation’s
government is in Washington, DC, flight
restrictions were established
immediately after September 11, 2001,
and most remain in place. Establishing
specific airspace for security reasons in
the Washington, DC area is not a new
practice. In 1938, by Executive Order
7910, the President reserved and set
apart airspace for national defense, the
public safety and other governmental
purposes. Those airspace reservations
were subsequently codified in 14 CFR
part 73 as ‘‘prohibited areas.’’ Over the
years, the size and dimensions of one of
these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P–56),
which is the airspace over and near the
White House, has changed in response
to world events. In accordance with 14
CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
aircraft within a prohibited area unless
authorization has been granted by the
using agency. The action proposed in
this notice does not modify P–56.

That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention
shoot-down authority.

The FAA is aware that the flight
restrictions imposed over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area have
impacted, and will continue to impact
some pilots in the area. However,
government security officials believe
that the proposed DC SFRA would
enhance and strengthen the ability of
DoD and DHS to protect the President,
Cabinet members, the Congress and
other assets in the capital region.

There are the DOD and DHS again.

According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the threat of
extremists launching an attack using
aircraft still exists.

It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started
flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's
difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively.

Numerous reports
continue to be received that
demonstrate Al-Qa’ida’s enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks.
Thus, there is a continued need for
aviation security vigilance. Intelligence
reports indicate that terrorists continue
to be interested in using general aviation
aircraft as part of another attack on the
U.S. or facilitation of activities since
general aviation aircraft are readily
available and relatively inexpensive.
Also, though security measures at
general aviation airports have improved,
they are less stringent than those in
place at many commercial airports.

It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received
and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order.

Overall and even though general
aviation aircraft are generally smaller
than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
destructive potential of a small aircraft
loaded with explosives may be
significant. It should be noted that
almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is
comprised of aircraft that are relatively
small. Aircraft in this segment of the
industry range from homebuilt craft to
large airliners. In addition, there are
thousands of general aviation airports in
the United States with varying degrees
of security procedures implemented.

So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the
destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional
restrictions on GA in the future?

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation’s capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.

Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members
of congress quaking in their boots.

So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD
wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action
other than endorsing "security".

If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the
falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has
expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against
terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that
contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate
the need for the NPRM.

Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those
in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a
creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument.
Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are
eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with.

It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters
care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those
said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest
in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a
"chance?"

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 02:44:26 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in euVIe.67$Yf7.39@trndny06::

Larry Dighera wrote:

We need to provide astute arguments that will dissuade
the FAA from adopting the permanent closure of 2,000 square miles of
airspace first.

I agree with this, as far as it goes, but I still think from reading that
proposal that the FAA is a *very* reluctant partner in this effort. If so,
our
efforts should also be spent on pressuring Congress.

If we are able to provide the FAA with additional arguments against
implementing the NPRM, they would probably welcome the opportunity to
use them to justify not creating the new rules. It can't hurt to
lobby your congressmen either, but as you point out below, they have a
vested interest in seeing the NPRM enacted.

I'd bet this whole thing is the brainchild of some of those
Congresscritters
who're POed about the recent evacuations. They just discovered that they
can't
put anyone in jail over those, and they want to "fix" that.


That's a reasonable guess. The FAA states that the request to make
the restrictions permanent came from DOD and DHS:


... the
Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security requested that the FAA
Administrator take action to codify
permanently current aviation flight
restrictions over the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area to support their
continuing mission to protect national
assets in the National Capital Region.

So the NPRM may be an attempt by DOD to perpetuate cushy home-side
duty, and DHS is so disorganized and over funded, that their input
borders on meaningless.

Here's what the FAA says about the history of the restrictions:

General Discussion of the Proposal
After the events of September 11,
2001, Congress and the President tasked
government agencies to increase the
protection of the United States and its
interests. Congress established the TSA
and tasked it with protecting the
security of our nation's transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, Congress
established the Department of
Homeland Security, in order to
centralize the administration of the
country's security efforts.

For the past two years, the FAA has
been working closely with the DoD and
DHS to draft security contingency plans
to protect the American public, national
assets, and operations in the National
Airspace System. Some of the measures
taken by the FAA include additional
cockpit security for certain air carrier
aircraft and temporary flight restrictions
over special events (often at stadiums)
that attract large numbers of people and
may be seen as potential targets by
terrorists.

Since the seat of our nation's
government is in Washington, DC, flight
restrictions were established
immediately after September 11, 2001,
and most remain in place. Establishing
specific airspace for security reasons in
the Washington, DC area is not a new
practice. In 1938, by Executive Order
7910, the President reserved and set
apart airspace for national defense, the
public safety and other governmental
purposes. Those airspace reservations
were subsequently codified in 14 CFR
part 73 as ''prohibited areas.'' Over the
years, the size and dimensions of one of
these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P-56),
which is the airspace over and near the
White House, has changed in response
to world events. In accordance with 14
CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
aircraft within a prohibited area unless
authorization has been granted by the
using agency. The action proposed in
this notice does not modify P-56.

That statement is a bit misleading in its failure to mention
shoot-down authority.

The FAA is aware that the flight
restrictions imposed over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area have
impacted, and will continue to impact
some pilots in the area. However,
government security officials believe
that the proposed DC SFRA would
enhance and strengthen the ability of
DoD and DHS to protect the President,
Cabinet members, the Congress and
other assets in the capital region.

There are the DOD and DHS again.

According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the threat of
extremists launching an attack using
aircraft still exists.

It's safe to say that such a threat has existed since aircraft started
flying, and will continue to exist as long as they do. Therefore it's
difficult to justify the NPRM on that ground exclusively.

Numerous reports
continue to be received that
demonstrate Al-Qa'ida's enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks.
Thus, there is a continued need for
aviation security vigilance. Intelligence
reports indicate that terrorists continue
to be interested in using general aviation
aircraft as part of another attack on the
U.S. or facilitation of activities since
general aviation aircraft are readily
available and relatively inexpensive.
Also, though security measures at
general aviation airports have improved,
they are less stringent than those in
place at many commercial airports.

It would be interesting to know when those reports were last received
and how many there have been. Perhaps a FOIA request is in order.

Overall and even though general
aviation aircraft are generally smaller
than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
destructive potential of a small aircraft
loaded with explosives may be
significant. It should be noted that
almost 70% of U.S. general aviation is
comprised of aircraft that are relatively
small. Aircraft in this segment of the
industry range from homebuilt craft to
large airliners. In addition, there are
thousands of general aviation airports in
the United States with varying degrees
of security procedures implemented.

So what sort of airport security procedures will reduce the
destructive potential of small aircraft? Does this portend additional
restrictions on GA in the future?

We believe that as part of ensuring the
security of the people, property and
institutions in the Nation's capital, and
surrounding area, it is essential to know
the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a
discrete transponder code, and to have
automatic altitude reporting equipment
on board the aircraft that transmits to
ATC. Government officials believe that
some types of aircraft operations (i.e.,
those conducted under parts 91, 101,
103, 105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should
continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless
specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS.

Ah. There it is. I'll bet "government officials" equates to members
of congress quaking in their boots.

So it may be that DC bureaucrats and congressmen are fearful, DOD
wants more stateside duty, and DHS would be embarrassed by any action
other than endorsing "security".

If those are the root causes of the NPRM, it is our duty to expose the
falicy of the security the NPRM attempts to assure. Jose has
expressed the opinion that there is no effective defense against
terrorist attacks. If persuasive evidence in support of that
contention can be presented in the docket comments, it would obviate
the need for the NPRM.

Perhaps there are other reasonable arguments that will persuade those
in authority to abandon their futile attempt. It's going to take a
creative mind and perspicacity to deliver such an effective argument.
Those among us with constructive thoughts on defeating this NPRM are
eagerly sought. Let's hear what we can come up with.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:57:05 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in
::

It may sound alittle impossible, but I don't think the Congress Critters
care if just certifed pilots want the ADIZ or not.......however if those
said certifed pilots got petitions of voters who did not have any interest
in aviation, other then just for pleasure travel with friends...maybe a
"chance?"

That's a constructive suggestion.

How would you word the petition, and what sort of argument would you
suggest we use to persuade voters to sign it?

At the moment however, there is a rapidly waning 30-day window of
opportunity to present opposing arguments to the FAA's NPRM. I was
hoping someone cared enough about the issue to draft some coherent
opposing views, and we could refine the ideas and submit them he
http://dms.dot.gov/submit/