Comments on FAA NPRM urgently needed

"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