![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Theune wrote:
blanche cohen wrote: There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address. I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in place for the past 4 years. While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing that kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense. The security on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones. Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline traffic to be disrupted into the area. Why? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rachel wrote:
John Theune wrote: blanche cohen wrote: There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address. I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in place for the past 4 years. While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing that kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense. The security on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones. Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline traffic to be disrupted into the area. Why? Rachel; Did you read my post? Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02... GA is never going to convince the rest of the world that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable. GA is going to learn the same thing that gun owners have learned over the years... Compromise never ends and once you've given up part of your right, it's next to impossible to get it back... The anti-GA people won't be happy until they have gotten all of us out of the sky... Every concession that we make are just getting us closer to this condition... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John Theune wrote:
Rachel wrote: John Theune wrote: blanche cohen wrote: There's a TFR today over DC for the State of the Union address. I don't understand why when there's been a massive one in place for the past 4 years. While I don't agree in the need for the ADIZ, I think in this case it's more justified then normal. The entire leadership of our country ( Both sides )is in one building for the sotu and it's a good idea to ratchet up security for that event. It's only 4 hours and if it were not for the ADIZ I don't think anyone would complain about it. While the risk of a light plane actually doing any damage is small, let's face it, you could load 500 pounds or so of high explosive into a 172 and that would make a fairly big hole in the capital building. I think that preventing that kind of attack should start way before the plane gets in the air, but for a short amount of time closing the airspace does make sense. The security on commercial aircraft now makes the possibility of another 911 attack remote but that level of screening and airmarshalls just does not exist for GA. Let's not over react to reasonable measures just because they are over shadowed by un reasonable ones. Sure, a light plane might poke a hole in a builing. Maybe. But as fuzzy as my memory is, I remember a couple heavy airliners doing a lot more damage a few years ago. Yet no one is calling for airline traffic to be disrupted into the area. Why? Rachel; Did you read my post? Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable. I did read your post. I still believe that GA is being singled out. Why is airline traffic allowed to continue when small aircraft are not? It's been demonstrated that large aircraft, on IFR flight plans, are a risk. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Theune" wrote in message news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02... Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable. And just how do these TFRs make the airspace as secure as possible? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message news:EC3Ef.16059$oo1.2926@trnddc02... Let's face it, you can turn a 172 into a cruise missile like device. It's not very likely and the solution to that problem should not be to close the airspace all the time, but for a special occasion like the SOTU where all the leadership of both parties are in a single building, then it does make sense to try to make it as secure as possible. GA is never going to convince the rest of the world that we are being unfairly picked on unless we show that we can live with reasonable restrictions and I don't think closing the airspace around DC for 4 HOURs is unreasonable. And just how do these TFRs make the airspace as secure as possible? Simple, if you in the TFR then you are a threat and can be dealt with. How they choose to deal with the threat is another story. The current ADIZ is not at all secure, since anyone can call and file a ADIZ flight plan. The current method has all of the problems and none of the gains for controlling airspace. Except it make the general population feel better. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Theune" wrote in message news:eCmEf.90824$M94.10477@trnddc01... Simple, if you in the TFR then you are a threat and can be dealt with. How they choose to deal with the threat is another story. How are they dealt with? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|