ADIZ Violation Explained in AOPA Magazine

".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

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

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.

While I don't disagree with that analysis of the record, the NPRM
procedure does require the FAA to justify their decision with reasoned
responses to the questions/objections raised during the comment
period(s). It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
rule(s).

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
rule(s).

If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
changes that have similar lack of justification?

I doubt that there's any genuinely feasible way to engage a legal challenge
to the FAA's analysis. If there is, I'm all ears. We've got a ridiculous
*prohibited* area here in the Puget Sound that is just begging to be
overturned.

Pete

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 00:14:21 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
rule(s).

If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
changes that have similar lack of justification?

Perhaps, because it would require exposing the fallacy in FAA's
reasoning used to justify their rule making?

Can you provide your source, that supports your assertion of there
never having been a contest?

I doubt that there's any genuinely feasible way to engage a legal challenge
to the FAA's analysis. If there is, I'm all ears. We've got a ridiculous
*prohibited* area here in the Puget Sound that is just begging to be
overturned.


Have you studied the FAA's rationale in issuing that Prohibited Area?
If you are able to show how their logic is flawed, I would think you
would have grounds to petition your representatives for redress.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Perhaps, because it would require exposing the fallacy in FAA's
reasoning used to justify their rule making?

How is that an impediment?

Can you provide your source, that supports your assertion of there
never having been a contest?

You want me to prove a negative?

[...]
Have you studied the FAA's rationale in issuing that Prohibited Area?

Yes. You are free to read my comments regarding the matter on the federal
docket for the issue. They are a matter of public record.

If you are able to show how their logic is flawed, I would think you
would have grounds to petition your representatives for redress.

Yes, it's clear that's what you think. In a perfect world, it's what I'd
think too.

Pete

If that were true, why has no one contested any of the prior rule-making
changes that have similar lack of justification?

Maybe because the effect of those other changes was not as onerous for
as many people? Even here we have people in the midwest who think the
ADIZ is "no big deal".

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

Maybe because the effect of those other changes was not as onerous for as
many people? Even here we have people in the midwest who think the ADIZ
is "no big deal".

I resemble that remark.

However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation since
9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal". Having
flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame that
we have such an abomination in our country.

But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in the
end -- we must deal with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation since
9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal". Having
flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame that
we have such an abomination in our country.

But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in the
end -- we must deal with it.

The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people have
submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ permanent,
there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www.JayMasino.com ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

It isn't a plebiscite so it matters not how many comments are received.
By statute, they are looking for new or different ideas.

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
However, my stating that flying is unchanged in most of the nation
since
9/11 is a far cry from saying that the D.C. ADIZ is "no big deal".
Having
flown inside that ADIZ, I know it's a VERY big deal, and it's a shame
that
we have such an abomination in our country.

But it's there. We can fight it, we can complain about it, but -- in
the
end -- we must deal with it.

The thing that upsets me is that, even though almost 20,000 people
have
submitted comments to the FAA on the NPR for making the ADIZ
permanent,
there are something like 400,000 AOPA members. Where the hell are the
other 380,000 AOPA members/pilots? Why aren't they submiting
comments? The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is
*far*
from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

--- Jay



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www.JayMasino.com ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

On 07 Jan 2006 22:03:41 GMT, (Jay Masino)
wrote in ::

The unfortunate thruth is that the aviation community is *far*
from the close knit community that some people like to pretend it is.

What would you suggest we do to change that?