Another ADIZ violation?

Sad, but true.

Feel good stuff for the masses

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:27:10 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Wiz" wrote in message
roups.com...
[...]
Paradoxically, every time someone accidentally violates the ADIZ, it
reinforces the notion for some people that we really need the ADIZ...

Only to people who have left their brain in neutral.

To anyone that bothers to think about it, ADIZ violations simply prove how
little the ADIZ has to do with actual security.

Ohhhh,..LOrdy... another one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:01:43 -0500, Ron Natalie
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Ron Natalie" wrote

ATC confiremed I was in severe clear and
told me to stop altitude squawk (the fact that I was showing 300 feet
as my altitude was a bit confusing).

Mowing the grass, eh?

Well, in some areas around here, that's digging a new metro tunnel :-)

Well, I hear they are looking for ways to cut the cost over runs.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Lynne wrote:
It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.


A "minimum"? You mean there's a higher rating?
YOU think about it: there have been thousands of ADIZ violations.
How many have you even heard about? How many were ATP's exercising PPL
privileges? You don't know, do you? Have you even read the ADIZ
notam? Doing so may enlighten you as to why not many airliners violate
it. Or maybe it won't, since you seem to form your opinions on so few
facts. An ATP just to fly a Cub within 30 miles of DCA. What an idiot.

"GS" wrote in message ...
A complete electrical failure is an emergency in my
book. If I had a complete electrical failure I'd
land wherever the hell *I* felt like it as long as my
butt was safe in the end.

Depends upon the weather conditions at the time... Day VFR over familiar
territory? Nawh, I wouldn't consider it an emergency... Night VFR over
Houston? Not a big deal, I've landed without a landing light quite a few
times... I guess it depends upon how familiar you are with your aircraft...

There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are flying
becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as possible at the
closest airport.

"darthpup" wrote

There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are
flying becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as
possible at the closest airport.

That! My friend, is a bunch of BS.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

There is a requirement that in the event the aircraft you are flying
becomes non airworthy to land the aircraft as soon as possible at the
closest airport.

What rule is that? (I assume you are not referring to the laws of
physics). "As soon as practicable" is not the same as "as soon as
possible".

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Tell the judge that reply in a civil court after you crash into
someones home with failed- in- flight equipment and see what he says.

In article .com, darthpup wrote:
Tell the judge that reply in a civil court after you crash into
someones home with failed- in- flight equipment and see what he says.

But, you know, judges are supposed to rule on basis of *law*...

(And hence, the basis for the term 'legal system'.)

If a judge rules out of emotion, it may get shot down in appeal court.

If a judge rule on basis of written law and historical interpretation,
it'll probably stand.

So the question still stands: which law or FAA-administered rule forms
the basis of the original claim?

-Dan