The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

Several violations were made by F-16's and other military aircraft!

I have yet to see GA cause any terrorist acts, and if one wanted to
insure that GA never did, then all of us should be grounded.

The fact is, this ADIZ is "feel good" crap for the GP (general public)
since most of them are terrified of small planes and can easily imagine
a Cessna 150 or Tomahawk toting a nuclear bomb from Kansas to the Capitol.

Here is an interesting AOPA link wherein the TSA or other authority
admits that over 60% of the ADIZ violations were never identified.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...a-comments.pdf

Terry

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
FlipSide wrote in message
...
This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.

So what would additional ADIZ training entail? How do you implement it
and how do you verify that pilots have had the training. How is it
documented? Do you have a special code on your certificate or is it
just a log book entry? Will they create a new FAA ADIZ police force?

Can you say "Chicken Little"?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...60706adiz.html

While I don't think the training is an especially good idea it would be
documented the same way all other special training is. A log book entry.

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
passed.

Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who
don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.



But for

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in
::

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination.

Just because DHS has the authority to demand the creation of the DC
ADIZ doesn't make them competent to make those kind of decisions. In
fact, DHS has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence and fiscal
irresponsibility, yet they seem to escape public outrage unscathed,
and continue to perpetrate their stupid tyranny unchecked. :-(.

by Larry Dighera Jul 7, 2006 at 08:03 PM


On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in
::

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the
DC

ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that
determination.

Just because DHS has the authority to demand the creation of the DC
ADIZ doesn't make them competent to make those kind of decisions. In
fact, DHS has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence and fiscal
irresponsibility, yet they seem to escape public outrage unscathed,
and continue to perpetrate their stupid tyranny unchecked. :-(.



The AOPA should get on this immediately, and organize a massive effort for
pilots to oppose this. A direct link to the docket management system
should be placed on their web site, with suggestions on exactly what to
write. If the bureau-rats read the same thing written by 20,000 people,
they will be convinced to drop the ADIZ.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:17:26 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping
inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that
if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain
aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.

The original poster asked how would we show that we had the training. I
answered a log book entry. SFAR 73-1 as an example.


How about the converse? If there is a problem understanding an airspace
design, perhaps the whole thing should be redesigned into something easy
to use and logical, if it is first determined to be necessary to have it
in the first place.

IMHO, the ADIZ fails in all of the above areas.

The folks that get to make that determination have determined that the DC
ADIZ is needed and they have the regulatory power to enforce that

It's more of a "we think we want to do this". Unfortunately they do
have the power to implement and enforce, but that does not mean they
determined it was "needed".

determination. If you don't like it lobby your congressmen and get a law
passed.

Until that happens the DC ADIZ is there and if you are going to fly near it
you better damn sure understand it. There seem to be a lot of people who

Wellll... I don't think even that is a valid argument in that even the
AOPA pres, who teaches about the thing, caught caught when they
changed the thing while he was in flight. So even knowing them
thoroughly is no guarantee.

don't understand it and one of these days one of them is going to get their
ass shot down. So if the DC ADIZ is there it might not be a bad idea to put
in some type of training program for pilots so that doesn't happen.

It could as easily happen (and has) to an airliner, or some one in GA
that is well trained in the things. GA planes are not the only ones
making the violations. Maybe that's why they want to add anti-missile
defenses to airliners.

Training for any aspect of flying is a good idea, but mandated for
something as irregular as the DC TFR is not a good idea until they
make the thing predictable and if it becomes predictable then the
training becomes unnecessary. Until then only real mandate is to
maintain contact with ATC and make sure they keep you apprised of the
ADIZ. Even that carries no assurance. On an IFR flight plan I've
been vectored in front of traffic, vectored for traffic avoidance and
forgotten, mistakenly given a circle to land in front of departing
traffic so I don't have a lot of faith in the system keeping me where
I need to be with something like an ADIZ that keeps changing shape and
size.

Like any other phase of flight all the pilot can do is become familiar
with the airspace, get an up-to-date briefing just before departure
and maintain contact with ATC. It is necessary to know intercept
procedures now, but that is true no mater where you fly in the US.
That is the most the pilot can do and the way the ADIZ is handled
there are still going to be violations from both commercial and GA.


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



But for

Roger

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Terry" wrote in message
...
I am wondering what good a logbook entry would be in stopping inadvertent
incursions into this pointless ADIZ.

I'm not saying the ADIZ is either needed or good. What I'm saying is that if
there is an ongoing problem with pilots not understanding a certain aviation
hazard or regulation that requiring training that should reduce that
misunderstanding might not be a bad idea.


What is stupid is it's not the pilots who live NEAR the ADIZ/FRZ that
are the problem. The same clowns who fly in ignorant of the ADIZ or
its procedures are the same ones who WON'T get the new training or
endorsement either.

All it means is that the FAA will have something to hang pilots on
who never intended to go anywhere near the DC ADIZ but did pass over
the eastern shore or more of the airspace grabbed by the 100 mile
radius.

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
snip

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

How about just getting rid of it?

In article ,
Emily wrote:

If the ADIZ is permanent, what they should require is ALL PILOTS learn
the procedures prior to getting a rating, or at their next Flight Review.

How about just getting rid of it?

don't be rationale. :-/

Getting rid of it would require the powers-that-be to admit they had
their collective heads up somewhere where the sun don't shine. :-(

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate