Washington DC airspace closing for good?

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:02:15 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Here's a first draft.

You didn't ask, but I'll offer a little constructive criticism you may
find useful in arriving at a final draft. These comments are
respectfully offered in a spirit of cooperation.

I oppose the proposed rules codifying current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.

Including the docket number here might be useful.

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

My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

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.

I might reword that as: ... does not increase security by an amount
commensurate with the financial and bourdons it imposes on Fixed Based
Operators in the area, and the loss of liberty of 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.

First, I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
of enacting that.

Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
aircraft impact their offices.

I respectively suggest wording along these lines:

Under the present and proposed regulations it would require a
huge sterile zone surrounding the presumed target. Such a zone
would have to be devoid of _all_ aircraft, as well as populated
surface area that would be affected by the wreckage in the event
an aircraft were 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.

of being shot down or have the wreckage of the shot down aircraft land
on them or their property.

Based
on the number of

DC ADIZ

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

and danger of being shot down

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

prospects for reelection

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


Bravo! Very well stated indeed.

You didn't ask...

Actually, by posting the draft, I was implicitly asking. I
appreciate the feedback, and will incorporate many of the changes as is.
However...

My Cherokee 235 had a useful load of 1,400 lbs, and could probably
become airborne carrying substantially more weight.

.... and this can make a fair sized bang. No argument. But what
triggered this whole thing was not a "fair sized" bang, but a "humongous
boom", next to which 1400 lbs of explosive is a firecracker. (anybody a
demolition expert that could quantify the destructive power of a
commercial jet vs a cherokee with 1400 lbs of bang in it?)

Although any sized bang is bad for the people in it, there needs to be a
threshold of bang required before we consider imposing strong
restrictions in an attempt to avoid it.

I might reword
[does not increase security by any appreciable amount,
although at the same time it imposes an inappropriate burden...]
as: ...
does not increase security by an amount
commensurate with the financial and bourdons...

My point is that if a bang can be delivered several ways, one needs to
close =all= those doors before security is appreciably increased.
Unless the roads are closed, the airplane provides little advantage.

I would rethink suggesting "a huge amount of airspace ...
completely sterile - no flights no aircraft ..." to an agency capable
of enacting that.

You think they haven't thought of it? My point is that this, which
would be necessary, would also be (obviously) too burdensome.

Second, our government may consider collateral damage associated with
any shoot-down acceptable, and certainly preferable to having the
aircraft impact their offices.

You are right. But (my point is that) the likelyhood that the
alternative to a rain of aircraft parts and flaming avgas is an airplane
in the White House lobby. The most likely alternative is a peaceful
sightseeing flight with four patriotic US citizens awestruck by the
beauty of our Capitol. Ok, a little rhetoric there, but it's an
important point. To this, collateral damage is =not= acceptable. I
suppose I need to state that more forcefully.

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?

2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?

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 Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:39:17 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more. To wit:

1: The FAA is required to "consider" the points being raised. To me
this means "to rebut them before enacting the rule anyway". (Ok, the
cynic in me!). In any case, what would their likely rebuttals be, so I
can anticipate them in the letter itself?

As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA’s 49
CFR part 1562, FAA’s NOTAM 3/0853,
and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately—
This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by
removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control
procedures and air space configurations.
Implementation of this alternative
would facilitate the return of pilots who,
for the sake of operating simplicity and
reduced flying costs, relocated to other
airports. This would be the least costly
option. The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection now in
place to safeguard vital national assets
located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected
because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and
increase their vulnerability.


2: Does it matter how many people sign such a letter? i.e. does it
make sense to make a petition out of it?

I don't know. But my feeling is, that the more comments from
different individuals the FAA receives that echo your point, the more
credence it will carry.

3: Would it make sense to get an organization like MoveOn.org to read
it and perhaps generate an action item?

I don't see how it could hurt. At least it will make the general
public aware of the NPRM.

As you are championing Alternative 1, the NPRM already contains the
FAA's reason for not adopting it:

[...] The FAA believes that the threat
of terrorists using aircraft as missiles
must be guarded against, and this option
would not adequately achieve that goal.

Conclusion: Rescinding these actions
would increase the vulnerability and
diminish the level of protection...

Well, either they have already made their decision (and further noise is
unnecessary even in what we considered a free state) or these are the
points that need to be rebutted. Alas, without actual data (which is
certainly classified) this will be difficult, as the response is
guaranteed to be "petitioner is wrong because of {CLASSIFIED}."

The NPRM contains the reasons for the decision that has already been
made. Our only hope is that the decision hasn't actually already been made.

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.