The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

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

Bob Noel wrote in
:

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. :-(


Not necessarily. "Powers" could very easily come up with a "study" saying
that the ADIZ has served its purpose in providing the necessary time to
get the training and systems in place to protect the Capitol region. Now
that they have had time to get it together, ongoing military support and
Whitehouse based missile silos (or whatever) will be adequate to keep the
Capitol safe with standard Class B airspace rules and procedures, and the
ADIZ is "no longer required." Faces would remain clear of eggs, and
everyone would be happy. We'd get our airspace back, the government would
be able to save some $$ on wasted FSS and controller costs (and maybe
some occassional F-16 fuel), and the public would feel good that they are
still safe.

The problem is that most "Powers" are not interested in effecting change
unless they would personally benefit from it, and the ones who are less
conservative are not interested in trimming the fat. Plus, I suspect the
most noticable ongoing cost is the FSS costs, which now are Lockheed's
problem, not the FAA's... So the benefit is even less because no one at
FAAland is going to want to renegotiate with Lockheed to get that $$$
back. So basically, they won't even be saving tax $$$ with the move.

So what's in it for the Powers-that-be?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but that's how I see it.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:27:23 -0500, Emily
wrote in ::


How about just getting rid of it?


Now, there's a novel idea. :-)