Washington DC airspace closing for good?

Here's a first draft.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. I
believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current
FRZ and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor
the proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their
implementation has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens
to effectively utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around
one of the most popular destinations in America.

These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an
attack is primarily in the imagination.

Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
load that these small airplanes can carry makes them less effective than
other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens. Although it may increase
the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.


The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and
law-breaking when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be
stopped by laws, nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate
action or large fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only
the good folk are going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the
threat of punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to
fly an airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly
do it under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very
last minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount
of airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no
flights, no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that
would be affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down.
The present proposal to codify existing regulations does not
accomplish this, therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a
truly effective restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel
to and from Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great
for this to be implemented,

The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk. Based
on the number of airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of
ATC errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief
that an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times
fighters have been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned
out not to be an evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we
shoot our own people out of the sky. Considering where they are flying,
it is not beyond reason that the victims could be our own congressmen,
lobbyists, or business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions
are supposed to be protecting. And considering where they would likely
be when they are shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable
damage and loss of life.

Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they
do put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.


The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
but don't because the burden is too great. Flying to National Airport
in a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little
under two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is
right in the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive
proposition, and I have done this in the past, for example to see a show
at the Kennedy Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National
is out of the question as a destination, as are the airports known as
the DC3. Dulles is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and
it's another hour or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not
including the time it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi.
Gaithersburg is another option, it's a little more convenient to land
at, but though there is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good
hour away from the action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting
transportation at Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail
transportation, but it too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for
the train, after which I am still not where I want to be, and I am
dependent on the vagaries of a lot more ground transportation. In
addition, Manassas is further away from my home airport so the flight
would take longer. By the time all the overhead time has been figured
into getting where I want to go, my trip length has nearly doubled, each
way. Faced with this, I have elected many times to simply not make the
trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses my business, the intended
destination airport in the Capitol loses my business, Washington DC
itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the cultural events I would
have attended play to a slightly emptier house, and all the money that I
would have spent in any of these places is not available to be spent
again by those businesses. Further, the money that my friends in DC
would have spent along with me does not circulate either.

The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.

Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own
security airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive
terrorist targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns
get "protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good"
measure that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like
something is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are
slowly paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not
only for transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing,
photography, training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they
support recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and
like boats of all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their
own right. But since the public does not have much contact with general
aviation, they are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our
basic freedoms such as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the
Capitol of our own country will serve them. It does not. It makes it
easier to choke out other freedoms.


Politicians benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely
to come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has
a ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when
a small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing.
Ironically, for the one possible threat that a small airplane could
conceivably carry out (though far less effectively than a rented car),
which is the spread of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the
buildings is exactly the wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.


There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is
not possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the
street without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not
possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our
airspace, unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel
stops being practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six
but less than four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a
solution. It may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four,
nor greater than six.

The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like
using five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does
it preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation,
and the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom.
We cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away
long before the illusion of security turns into real security.

I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection
that these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.

I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people
have given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am
opposed to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of
security in the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area
around the greater Washington DC area.

Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
immediately.

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.

How About This,
You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before entering
the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know which planes are
there, then the Class B does that just because you must have permission to
enter Class B and you must have a transponder. All it requires is ATC giving
a plane a transponder code and they know who you are. If the airspace has to
much traffic Class B can always deny entrance until traffic is at acceptable
levels. It' simple, it is factual, and it does not make the Congress
Critters think you are a radical who wants to set up a training camp in the
mountains of Montana to retake the government!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
Here's a first draft.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. I
believe that the nation is much better served by preserving the values
that made America great in the first place, by rescinding the current FRZ
and ADIZ completely. Neither the current airspace restrictions, nor the
proposed ones, are an effective security measure, but their implementation
has greatly curtailed the freedom of law-abiding citizens to effectively
utilize over ten thousand cubic miles of airspace around one of the most
popular destinations in America.

These restrictions permit low altitude commercial air carrier operations
within only a few miles of the Capitol and the Pentagon. The only known
terrorist attacks on the United States that utilized aircraft used
commercial air carriers. At the same time, these restrictions would
prohibit or severely restrict small aircraft such as four seat, single
engine, piston powered airplanes. This kind of aircraft has never been
used in an attack in the United States, and its utility in such an attack
is primarily in the imagination.

Although small aircraft could be used in a terrorist attack, the limited
load that these small airplanes can carry makes them less effective than
other methods of delivering a payload (such as ground vehicles), so
protecting the capitol against small aircraft does not increase security
by any appreciable amount, although at the same time it imposes an
inappropriate burden on law abiding citizens. Although it may increase
the appearance of security, it is very important not to confuse illusion
with reality. This is especially true where terrorism is concerned,
because if we are not careful we will do the terrorist's work for them,
destroying our own country and all it stands for, little by little.


The current and proposed restrictions do not protect the capitol.
Terrorists are law-abiding when it suits their purposes, and law-breaking
when that suits their purposes. They are not going to be stopped by laws,
nor will the threat of punishment such as certificate action or large
fines deter a terrorist from pursuing his goal. Only the good folk are
going to be victimized by flight restrictions and the threat of
punishment. A terrorist who, for whatever reason, chooses to fly an
airplane into the DC area to commit mayhem will almost certainly do it
under cover of complete compliance with the law, until the very last
minute. The only way this is not "too late" is for a huge amount of
airspace around the presumed target to be completely sterile - no flights,
no aircraft, no airports, no populated areas underneath that would be
affected by the wreckage when an errant aircraft is shot down. The present
proposal to codify existing regulations does not accomplish this,
therefore it is ineffective. The adverse impact of a truly effective
restriction would be to virtually shut down air travel to and from
Washington DC and Baltimore. The impact is far too great for this to be
implemented,

The current and proposed restrictions put our citizens at risk. Based on
the number of airspace incursions already recorded, and the number of ATC
errors which have led to airspace incursions or the erroneous belief that
an airspace incursion has occurred, and the number of times fighters have
been scrambled to face down with lethal force what turned out not to be an
evildoer, it will only be a matter of time before we shoot our own people
out of the sky. Considering where they are flying, it is not beyond
reason that the victims could be our own congressmen, lobbyists, or
business leaders - the very people the flight restrictions are supposed to
be protecting. And considering where they would likely be when they are
shot down, the debris alone would cause considerable damage and loss of
life.

Since the restrictions do not effectively protect the capitol, and they do
put our own citizens in danger, they should be eliminated, and the
airspace should revert to the way it was in the year 2000.


The adverse effects of the flight restrictions do not accrue just to the
local airports that are directly affected. They radiate out to all the
airports from which flights into the FRZ and ADIZ might have originated,
but don't because the burden is too great. Flying to National Airport in
a Piper Cherokee from my home base in Danbury would take a little under
two hours. My home is ten minutes from Danbury, and National is right in
the center of Washington DC. This is an attractive proposition, and I
have done this in the past, for example to see a show at the Kennedy
Center. With the flight restrictions in place, National is out of the
question as a destination, as are the airports known as the DC3. Dulles
is possible, but it's not a very convenient airport and it's another hour
or more by ground transportation into the DC area, not including the time
it takes to arrange to rent a car or wait for a taxi. Gaithersburg is
another option, it's a little more convenient to land at, but though there
is a Metro within taxi distance, it is still a good hour away from the
action. Freeway airport is a hair closer but getting transportation at
Freeway is a bit of a problem. Manassas has rail transportation, but it
too takes over an hour, not counting the wait for the train, after which I
am still not where I want to be, and I am dependent on the vagaries of a
lot more ground transportation. In addition, Manassas is further away
from my home airport so the flight would take longer. By the time all the
overhead time has been figured into getting where I want to go, my trip
length has nearly doubled, each way. Faced with this, I have elected many
times to simply not make the trip. My home base at Danbury airport loses
my business, the intended destination airport in the Capitol loses my
business, Washington DC itself loses my business and my tax dollars, the
cultural events I would have attended play to a slightly emptier house,
and all the money that I would have spent in any of these places is not
available to be spent again by those businesses. Further, the money that
my friends in DC would have spent along with me does not circulate either.

The Washington/Baltimore area becomes incrementally less vibrant.

Further, the existence of this illusory "special security airspace"
invites other areas to attempt to justify and implement their own security
airspace. There are plenty of cities that have attractive terrorist
targets and leaders that will not stand by while other towns get
"protection". Flight restrictions are an attractive "feel good" measure
that politicians can implement to make their citizens feel like something
is being done, yet in fact what is being done is that we are slowly
paralyzing ourselves. Small aircraft are eminently useful not only for
transportation and commerce, but also for sightseeing, photography,
training, search and rescue, construction surveys, they support
recreational activities such as parachuting and tourism, and like boats of
all sizes, they serve as a recreational activity in their own right. But
since the public does not have much contact with general aviation, they
are easily misled to believe that restrictions on our basic freedoms such
as the freedom to sightsee from the air around the Capitol of our own
country will serve them. It does not. It makes it easier to choke out
other freedoms.


Politicians benefit by having citizens remain scared, if they can offer
something that will calm their anxieties. The proposed codification of
the existing temporary flight restrictions covering over ten thousand
cubic miles does exactly that. It reinforces the idea that small
airplanes are dangerous, that a significant terrorist attack is likely to
come from these "uncontrolled" airplanes, and that the government has a
ready solution at hand. Evacuating the buildings in the DC area when a
small plane flies overhead is an example of such posturing. Ironically,
for the one possible threat that a small airplane could conceivably carry
out (though far less effectively than a rented car), which is the spread
of chemical or biological agents, evacuating the buildings is exactly the
wrong thing to do. But it was done anyway.


There are certain things that simply must be accepted. Just as it is not
possible to protect oneself from gunfire when walking down the street
without giving up a significant quality of life, it is also not possible
to protect the nation from terrorist attacks by restricting our airspace,
unless we actually close down so much airspace that air travel stops being
practical. Like finding a number that is greater than six but less than
four, it cannot be done. Many people would pick five as a solution. It
may feel good, but it is in fact neither less than four, nor greater than
six.

The proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for certain
aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area are like using
five as a solution. It neither provides real security, nor does it
preserve the freedoms that make this country great. We, as a nation, and
the FAA as an agency, need to choose between security and freedom. We
cannot have both, not even a little bit. Freedom gets eroded away long
before the illusion of security turns into real security.

I do not believe that rescinding the TSA’s 49 CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM
3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ would increase the vulnerability or decrease
the level of protection now in place. I believe that the protection that
these rules provide is illusory, and illusions are very dangerous.

I am in favor of the freedoms that thousands upon thousands of people have
given their lives to obtain and preserve for this country. I am opposed
to the erosion of these freedoms to provide us the illusion of security in
the guise of a permanent and huge flight restricted area around the
greater Washington DC area.

Therefore, I recommend that your Alternative 1 - to rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ, be enacted
immediately.

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.

W P Dixon wrote:
How About This,
You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before
entering the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know
which planes are there, then the Class B does that just because you must
have permission to enter Class B and you must have a transponder.

The problem with that is that the class B airspace does not extend to the ground
at the perimeter, nor does it extend above 10,000'. If you change the class B to
do this, you have almost the existing ADIZ, so why make that change?

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.

Correct George,
But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus
Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would be
re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very very
simple. We could call it Class B plus!!!
Gov is happy everybody has a transponder on and being tracked, only
enter by permission, and it would not be restricted airspace. Would it be a
pain..sure Class B can be..would it be a no fly zone...NOPE. Problem solved.
Sometimes the simplicity of a solution is the hardest to get people to
see,.....especially CONGRESS!
Just change the rules of DC's Class B...no need to reinvent the wheel.
With the stroke of a pen and changing the charts and POOF we have the DC
Bplus!!! Still may not be perfect but it frees pilots some, and still offers
the same security the politicians want(so it appears they have done
something!)

Patrick

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:AYyJe.895$Im1.392@trndny02...
W P Dixon wrote:
How About This,
You get more flies with honey than vinegar approach, mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before
entering the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know
which planes are there, then the Class B does that just because you must
have permission to enter Class B and you must have a transponder.

The problem with that is that the class B airspace does not extend to the
ground at the perimeter, nor does it extend above 10,000'. If you change
the class B to do this, you have almost the existing ADIZ, so why make
that change?

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.

"W P Dixon" wrote

Just change the rules of DC's Class B...no need to reinvent the wheel.
With the stroke of a pen and changing the charts and POOF we have the DC
Bplus!!!

I like it! Make it so!
--
Jim in NC

But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would be re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very very simple. We could call it Class B plus!!!

How does this materially differ from simply eliminating the FRZ and
keeping the ADIZ (other than that the airspace boundaries would now
coincide with class B)? IF you redefine the rules for B+ airspace, you
can redefine them in accordance with the ADIZ rules, and all we've done
is change the name.

It does get rid of the FRZ, but the justification for the ADIZ =is= the
FRZ. With no FRZ, there's no need for B+ either.

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.

Hee Hee,
See Jose you are trying to re invent the wheel think simple. The ADIZ
would be no more, is that not your goal? Tracking for every plane in the new
ClassBplus, is that not the gov's goal? Sometimes you have to give alittle
to get alittle. I don't see all restrictions disappearing,..so maybe we can
give to a ClassB idea,..of course it like all else would require pilots
following the rules.
But as I see it not only is there going to be a permanent ADIZ but all
these pilots that can not follow the rules are going to make it into an
absolute NO FLY ZONE. Yeah yeah I know the ones that actually busted it on
there on is not really a large large number. But think about it, IF
something does happen in that area and the reason it happened was because
"powers that be" could not make a shoot down order in time because they were
not sure it was a putz from PA that was lost or threat.....then GA probably
would not be flying at all.
Compromise is always the best way to find a solution, if our side is
just as hard headed as the other side guess what will happen..more and more
restrictions. The other side is the gov and they will win...our option is to
compromise and say hey we understand but listen to this solution, then just
maybe the gov will say "hey we can live with that!" IMHO of course.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Jose" wrote in message
.. .
But see my answer to the problem would be to make the entire area minus
Class A , into a super class"B". The normal rules of what Class B would
be re-defined for the ADIZ area, which is very very possible and very
very simple. We could call it Class B plus!!!

How does this materially differ from simply eliminating the FRZ and
keeping the ADIZ (other than that the airspace boundaries would now
coincide with class B)? IF you redefine the rules for B+ airspace, you
can redefine them in accordance with the ADIZ rules, and all we've done is
change the name.

It does get rid of the FRZ, but the justification for the ADIZ =is= the
FRZ. With no FRZ, there's no need for B+ either.

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.

The ADIZ would be no more, is that not your goal? Tracking for every plane in the new ClassBplus, is that not the gov's goal?

The FRZ would be no more. That is (part of) my goal. The ADIZ going
away is also my goal, but I'm not sure you've done more than just
renaming it. We already have all aircraft in the 30nm ring requring
transponders, this would add a discrete code and clearance requirement;
clearance that can be denied at whim.

I don't see how we could sell this as =sufficient=, and it certainly
isn't =necessary=, for any defense purposes. If we are arguing that the
current or proposed rules are not appropriate, it makes little sense to
propose an alternative that is also unjustified.

I agree that mentioning that class B aircraft are also tracked is worth
doing. But letting untracked aircraft under the shelf does not weaken
the security of DC in any appreciable way; that's the whole point of my
comment to the FAA.

Am I missing something in your proposal?

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 Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:20:46 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in
::

The normal rules of what Class B would be re-defined

Than the airspace wouldn't be in compliance with ICAO worldwide
standards.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:19:18 -0400, "W P Dixon"
wrote in
::

... mention that as
Class B airspace , every plane has to have approval from ATC before entering
the airspace. So if the entire point of the ADIZ is to know which planes are
there,

If you had read the NPRM*, you'd know that is not the entire extent of
the information the FAA/DOD/DHS/TSA/... seek.

then the Class B does that just because you must have permission to
enter Class B and you must have a transponder.

But in Class B airspace ATC must admit aircraft in the order they
call, which limits ATC flexibility, and ATC must provide separation to
all aircraft, which may not be possible.

All it requires is ATC giving
a plane a transponder code and they know who you are.

No, they ATC will not know who you are as they would with a Flight
Plan.

If the airspace has to[o]
much traffic Class B can always deny entrance until traffic is at acceptable
levels. It' simple, it is factual, and it does not make the Congress
Critters think you are a radical ...

The comments on the NPRM are evaluated by the FAA not Congress.


* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...4adiz-nprm.pdf