Comments on FAA NPRM urgently needed

"PokerGTA.com" wrote in message
oups.com...
Cap, we are talking about the airspace in the DC area. You are
referring to all of the airspace class B and C. A little
extreme....no?

Even if the only airspace affected was that currently affected, this would
be a bad rule change. Especially when one considers that Congress is
*still* waiting to hear back from the DHS and FAA with respect to their
explanation for why the ADIZ is necessary in the first place.

The ADIZ does nothing to protect DC from terrorists, but it does provide a
lot of wasteful make-work for law enforcement, as well as is a fairly
onerous trap for pilots (unwary or otherwise).

However, it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that if the FAA is
successful in making permanent the DC area ADIZ, they would be pressured to
create similar ADIZ's elsewhere. Just because the current NPRM is only
proposing to make the DC ADIZ permanent, that doesn't mean it's not relevant
to airspace elsewhere.

If you are truly interested in the finer details of the issue, there has
been MORE than ample discussion right here in this newsgroup, time and time
again. Google Groups will show you everything that anyone could post in
response to your naive question.

By the way what are you Capt. of?

Why does it matter what he's a Captain of?

Pete

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 20:05:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

However, it's certainly not a stretch to imagine that if the FAA is
successful in making permanent the DC area ADIZ, they would be pressured to
create similar ADIZ's elsewhere.

Oh, you mean like the 'permanent Temporary Flight Restriction over
Disneyland that does nothing to enhance security:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/TFR.cfm?list=all
3/2123 - FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ANAHEIM, CA. EFFECTIVE 0303182000
UTC (MARCH 18 AT 1200 LOCAL) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO
RESTRICTIONS DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7, AND 14
CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. AIRCRAFT FLIGHT
OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL, WITHIN A 3
NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF THE DISNEYLAND THEME PARK
(334805N/1175517W OR THE SEAL BEACH /SLI/ 067 DEGREE RADIAL AT 6.7
NAUTICAL MILES. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO (A) THOSE
AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES,
INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING
STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT
WITH ATC. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY APPLY
FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES
OF THE VENUE INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF EQUIPMENT OR
OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY; (B) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY
PURPOSES OF THE VENUE. INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT
HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER, OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322. 18
MAR 20:00 UNTIL UFN

Locate on Map Printable WAC/Sectional Printable GNC [No Labels]

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Oh, you mean like the 'permanent Temporary Flight Restriction over
Disneyland that does nothing to enhance security: [...]

No, of course not. And I also don't mean like the new Prohibited Area that
was placed over the Bangor Navy sub base here in Washington State. Nor do I
mean like the proposed Prohibited Area over another Navy installation on the
East Coast (St. Mary's? sorry...I forget the exact name).

Oh, wait...you're right, I DO mean exactly like those.

By the way, those airspace restrictions should give some insight into just
how likely it is any comments at this point in the rule-making will change
the direction the FAA is headed. For example, the response to the NPRM for
the Bangor Prohibited Area was well over 90% against any restrictions there
at all, most comments including a number of well-reasoned and clearly-stated
objections.

Those still with enough energy to put up the good fight, feel free to
comment. But I hope no one thinks it's going to change anything at this
point. The FAA has demonstrated quite clearly what they think of the NPRM
process: it's just some procedural hand-waving they are required by law to
go through, and they need not actually pay any attention whatsoever to the
feedback they receive through it.

Pete

Oh GET REAL! wink Ya know the terrorists are really looking to knock-off,
Mickey!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman
CP-ASEL-IA

Student - C.F.I.

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Cecil Chapman wrote:
Oh GET REAL! wink Ya know the terrorists are really looking to knock-off,
Mickey!

Wait. I thought Mickey *was* the terrorist... I'm so confused...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
-- Brian Kernigan

chill pal! Just curious.