A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Washington DC airspace closing for good?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 7th 05, 03:33 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel

"Happy Dog" wrote:

When you guys are done patting yourselves on the back you might address
my
point that there isn't any good evidence that the ADIZ was created to
reduce
"clutter".


Define "clutter"


In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'


Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?

moo


  #2  
Old August 7th 05, 03:58 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Happy Dog wrote:

In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'


Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?


During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that was the
case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the area to something
manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of the hearingd were
broadcast on NPR last Spring.

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.
  #3  
Old August 7th 05, 01:35 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05...
Happy Dog wrote:

In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'


Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?


During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.


That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?

moo


  #4  
Old August 8th 05, 02:52 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Happy Dog wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:aNeJe.1241$lT.705@trndny05...

During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.


That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?


Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I heard
some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state that the
purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure that there were
no unidentified primary radar echoes.

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.
  #5  
Old August 8th 05, 11:56 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Patterson"

During the 9/11 investigations, several security people stated that that
was the case. They wanted to reduce the number of radar targets in the
area to something manageable if they had to intercept. A fair amount of
the hearingd were broadcast on NPR last Spring.


That's it, really? "Several security people stated"? You OK with that?


Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.


Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.

moo


  #6  
Old August 9th 05, 01:37 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Happy Dog wrote:
"George Patterson"

Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.


Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.


That's as may be, but the fact is that *they* say that *they* did it for *this*
reason.

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.
  #7  
Old August 9th 05, 02:03 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:tVSJe.1664$lT.630@trndny05...
Happy Dog wrote:
"George Patterson"

Certainly. NPR didn't state "several security people stated", they played
recordings of the hearings and identified the speakers. In other words, I
heard some of the people responsible for getting the ADIZ set up state
that the purpose was to reduce the number of radar targets and make sure
that there were no unidentified primary radar echoes.


Other ways of accomplishing this have been suggested.


That's as may be, but the fact is that *they* say that *they* did it for
*this* reason.


They may have said it but it still doesn't make sense. That makes it less
than credible. Were these "security people" aviation experts?

moo


  #8  
Old August 7th 05, 05:43 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in ::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel


In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'


Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?


I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a
guess.

The August FAA NPRM contains this information:

In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal
agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to
protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected
airspace were determined after considering such factors as the
speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the
speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among
Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer
area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B
airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ...


I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the
reason for it stated the
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html
or in its extension:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._extension.pdf

I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents,
hence the guess.


  #9  
Old August 7th 05, 01:46 PM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:33:43 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in ::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:26:03 -0400, Bob Noel


In the case of the DC ADIZ, I believe it was created to restrict the
number of targets/flights within its boundaries, so that unidentified
primary radar targets will be easier to spot. Perhaps 'congestion'
would have been a more accurate word than 'clutter.'


Where is your evidence that this is the reason behind the ADIZ?


I have no evidence. It is purely a matter of logical deduction, a
guess.


Thank you for your research. But, it doesnt support your claim. In fact,
the paragrapgh you quote is just plain silly. "Minimun launch time"? Did
you read this crap before dropping to your knees?

I repost the following to invite defenders of it.:

The August FAA NPRM contains this information:

In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal
agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to
protect against a potential threat to the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected
airspace were determined after considering such factors as the
speed of likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the
speed of intercept aircraft. After extensive coordination among
Federal agencies, two airspace areas were implemented. The outer
area, which closely mimics the current Washington Tri-area Class B
airspace, is called an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) ...


I suppose one could research the original FAA ADIZ NPRM and find the
reason for it stated the
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2002/sfar94.html
or in its extension:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite..._extension.pdf

I wasn't able to find the reason for the DC ADIZ in those documents,
hence the guess.


Hence shut up.

moo


  #10  
Old August 7th 05, 02:52 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 08:46:24 -0400, "Happy Dog"
wrote in ::


Hence shut up.


Is it your intent to revoke my right to express an opinion on Usenet?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? Larry Dighera Instrument Flight Rules 12 April 26th 04 06:12 PM
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? Larry Dighera Piloting 12 April 26th 04 06:12 PM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.