ADIZ Violation Explained in AOPA Magazine

"Happy Dog" wrote in message


Crap. Student pilots can figure this out. The radcio doesn't work on
121.5, try another frequency. This brought the who intercept
procedure down? Get a grip!

How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to use?
There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The issue is
figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

More rules. More penalties. That's it. Read the ****ing AOPA
report. This was a 6 out of 10 for stupid pilot tricks.

I think it ranks much higher as a "Stupid Pilot Trick".

From the AOPA article posted on their website:
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...light0601.html

"Shaeffer...crafted a radio navigation plan that showed what radials the
pair needed to fly from various VORs to avoid flying into the ADIZ and
P-40..."

Then, the next paragraph:
"I didn't realize that there was an ADIZ around Washington, or otherwise I
would never have gone there," confirmed Sheaffer."

Which one of these statements is correct? You can't intentionally craft a
nav plan avoiding something you never knew was there. What VOR route did
they plan?

They claim they planned the flight "using current sectional charts that
Sheaffer said he purchased the week before." I just happen to have in front
of me the Washington TAC dated August 5, 2004 (a full 10 months before this
flight) that clearly shows the ADIZ. I don't have a sectional from the same
time to demonstrate, but it was also updated around the same date with the
ADIZ. See
http://aviationtoolbox.org/munge/data/square_warped/Washington%2075%20North.jpg
for an example.

It seems to me they were not using current charts - at least not for the
Washington area.

The author continues:
"Sheaffer owned a Palm personal digital assistant with Control Vision
Anywhere Map...Because there was no power available on the airplane,
Sheaffer left the GPS in his truck the next day instead of taking it along."

A) ControlVision's AnywhereMap (http://www.anywheremap.com) does not run on
the Palm platform.
B) Why leave a battery-powered GPS behind? Would it not make more sense to
have it in the cockpit - even powered down when not in use - to hep find
your way if you get lost?

Mo
"They checked weather using a Web site, but did not get an official weather
briefing."
Right before takeoff with fog "blanketing the region", "Sheaffer checked the
Web site again for a weather update before leaving home, but did not call
flight service."

What web site were they using for flight planning did not offer NOTAMs?

"[W]orkers were installing a new floor in the building and the telephone was
not accessible."

Neither pilot could use a home phone (assuming neither had a cell)?

After the intercept, they were instructed to tune to 121.5 but heard only
beeping. "Later the two learned that an emergency locator transmitter was
in operation nearby."

""My thinking was that we were probably approaching P-40 and that we should
be heading to the south to clear, and with no instruction forthcoming we
found ourselves flying more and more toward the south," continued
Martin...Sheaffer said he knew that they were not in the Camp David
airspace, although he didn't tell that to Martin until after the flight."

They simply "found themselves" flying south, eh? After saying he thought
they should head south to clear where he thought he was? I'm thinking he
took a southerly heading intentionally. Good guess on his part, just way
wrong.

"When asked by AOPA Pilot to clarify which aircraft it was [that finally
contacted the C150], DHS officials chose not to comment."

This doesn't mean the radios on any given aircraft were inoperative or
anything more than DHS didn't disclose which aircraft made the call. It
does raise an eyebrow regarding "why" they didn't disclose it, but no safe
conclusions can be drawn from this.

"Sheaffer said he was told twice by a DHS official that the helicopter had
radio problems..."

I might say something similar, too. I would be interested to hear from a
reliable source whether the radios were indeed inop.

Martin said "it was a good landing. I am proud of it." At least there's
something to be proud of in this incident.

They do list some good ideas and lessons learned and AOPA did their level
best to paint these two individuals in a sympathetic light, but I'm not yet
convinced Shaeffer deserves to get his certficate back due to the harm he's
done to the reputations of every GA pilot.

There's no
risk commeseurate with the defence effort. m Get it?

No doubt, but are you supporting violations of the ADIZ?

Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing
dismantled.

As does every twit who goes on record supporting it.

Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?

From the article you insisted I read:
"As a result of that blundering flight on May 11, 2005, all GA pilots in the
Washington, D.C., region face the daunting prospects of a permanent ADIZ..."

My statement stands.

"Bob Jones" wrote:

How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to use?
There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The issue is
figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

The general rule of thumb is to get in contact with any ATC or FSS
facility, and let them figure it out.

At the high-tech end, I've punched up "nearest ARTCC" on our Garmin-480
when I've flown out of radio range with the guy I was talking to. It only
took a moment for me to explain to the center controller what my problem
was, and he got me a good frequency for the next tracon sector.

Try any approach or FSS freq you can find on the chart. In a pinch, 122.0
(flight watch) from almost anywhere in the country will get you to somebody
who can respond in a useful way to "Sorry to bother you, but I've got an
F-16 on my wingtip, what should I do now?"

If you've got a cell phone, calling 1-800-WX-BRIEF is another ace up your
sleeve.

"Bob Jones" wrote in
Crap. Student pilots can figure this out. The radcio doesn't work on
121.5, try another frequency. This brought the who intercept
procedure down? Get a grip!

How do you propose to tell the other guy what frequency you're going to
use? There's no question another frequency would need to be used. The
issue is figuring out one both pilots would know to use.

You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be able
to fihure this out.

More rules. More penalties. That's it. Read the ****ing AOPA
report. This was a 6 out of 10 for stupid pilot tricks.

I think it ranks much higher as a "Stupid Pilot Trick".

If you look at the subsequent hype, sure. But the initial screwups were,
sadly, fairly ordinary.

snip Monday Morning QBing

There's no
risk commeseurate with the defence effort. m Get it?

No doubt, but are you supporting violations of the ADIZ?

Every violation hurts our chances of getting the damned thing
dismantled.

As does every twit who goes on record supporting it.

Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?

Anyone who thinks it serves any useful purpose or that it doesn't cause
unnecessary problems. Like this one.

m

Happy Dog wrote:

You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be
able to fihure this out.

You're right. Why didn't this student (Martin)? Why didn't Shaeffer?

snip Monday Morning QBing

Funny. Isn't that what you're doing?

Answer carefully: Which "twit" around here is supporting it?

Anyone who thinks it serves any useful purpose or that it doesn't
cause unnecessary problems. Like this one.

If you think I'm supporting the ADIZ, I challenge you to find a single
statement I've made in favor of it.

The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely because
of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a *permanent* ADIZ.
Now you come along and appear sympathetic to him.

Let him cry on your shoulder, if you'd like. I'm too busy dealing with the
consequences of his actions to be sympathetic to him in the least.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely because
of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a *permanent* ADIZ.

Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
triggered by or even supported by this incident.

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

Jose wrote:

Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
triggered by or even supported by this incident.

I am. Soon after this incident (and directly due to it) members of Congress
from both parties introduced legislation to strengthen penalties for ADIZ
violations. Not long after that (in bureaucratic terms), the FAA proposed
to make the ADIZ permanent. I'm sure the fact that as of May 12, 2005 there
were 1,682 ADIZ violations had something to do with it, too.

Shaeffer's obviously isn't the only violation, but it is the most visible.
The only other ADIZ violation that comes close to the visibility of
Shaeffer's was Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky when his plane's transponder
wasn't working correctly. Also in relatively recent memory was the incident
where another pilot flew across the ADIZ and landed at Winchester. This one
didn't get the notoriety because the Capitol was not evacuated, but it does
reinforce the notion that we pilots can't/won't follow the rules.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message m...
Jose wrote:

Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
triggered by or even supported by this incident.

I am. Soon after this incident (and directly due to it) members of Congress from both parties introduced legislation
to strengthen penalties for ADIZ violations. Not long after that (in bureaucratic terms), the FAA proposed to make
the ADIZ permanent. I'm sure the fact that as of May 12, 2005 there were 1,682 ADIZ violations had something to do
with it, too.

....snip...
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________




The NPRM for permanently making this airspace restricted is the FAAs way to calling the TSA or Homeland Security to the
table; when this airspace was defined, the TSA (or Homeland Security, or SS) was supposed to justify it every 60 days or
so which has never been done. This NPRM requires public hearings so they will have to try and justify it which should
prove to be interesting....

".Blueskies." wrote in message
et...
The NPRM for permanently making this airspace restricted is the FAAs way
to calling the TSA or Homeland Security to the table; when this airspace
was defined, the TSA (or Homeland Security, or SS) was supposed to justify
it every 60 days or so which has never been done. This NPRM requires
public hearings so they will have to try and justify it which should prove
to be interesting....

You are quite the optimist.

The NPRM doesn't force anyone to justify anything. It's not the FAA's "way
to calling the TSA or DHS to the table". It's their way of following the
legally required steps to implement their new rules.

If the NPRM were anything other than bureaucratic procedure, then all the
previous NPRMs for bad ideas would have resulted in those bad ideas not
being implemented. But it's not, and they didn't. Anyone who thinks that
comments to a NPRM will have any real effect on the outcome just hasn't been
paying attention to the way the FAA has handled them.

Pete

".Blueskies." wrote in message
et

justify it which should prove to be interesting....

As Peter said, the NPRM is just the FAA dotting i's and crossing t's to make
permanent airspace changes.

As for justifying its existence, Congress mandated the FAA (not DHS, etc.)
justify it periodically. As you say, nobody has done it and, as far as I
can tell, nobody has followed through on requiring it.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
m...
Happy Dog wrote:

You fly? You couldn't do this? FSS, *any* ATC. A student should be
able to fihure this out.

You're right. Why didn't this student (Martin)? Why didn't Shaeffer?

I agree that they're idiots. But I was referring to the entire US
Government effort directed at intercepting them. This incursion was a
foreseeable occurrance and they seriously botched it.

snip Monday Morning QBing

Funny. Isn't that what you're doing?

Hardly.

The fact remains Shaeffer screwed us all with this stunt and largely
because of him (and the overreaction by DC officials), we face a
*permanent* ADIZ. Now you come along and appear sympathetic to him.

I don't much care about him. He got a bit worse than I think he deserved.
But not as bad as he could have. Any interaction with law enforcement is
like that. This was fairly ordinary.

Let him cry on your shoulder, if you'd like. I'm too busy dealing with
the consequences of his actions to be sympathetic to him in the least.

Godlike.

moo