A thousand incursions a year?

" Blueskies" wrote in
m:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
I forgot to mention in my original post that in this program
was plenty of video demonstrating the laser warning system.

In the night footage the waring flashes were very clear.

However, in the daylight footage it was hard to spot. It
just didn't appear to stand out all that much. I would venture
to say that if someone was looking 90 degrees away from
the laser they wouldn't even notice it in the daytime.

Brian
--


All this is based on the assumption that the ADIZ is a valid premise
anyway

Quite. But I am left wondering how useful this laser warning
system will be during the day. There's sure to be pilots who
say, "I didn't see no flashing red red green light."

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
There are some drivers I know that are downright scary. I hope the
certification process would eliminate some of those from actually getting
a certificate.

Even restricting the survey to experiences described in this very newsgroup,
there is ample evidence of identically scary pilots. Many of us (most or
all of us, more likely) have personal knowledge of identically scary pilots.

The certification process does eliminate SOME of those drivers you know who
are downright scary. But not because they are scary; mostly it's just
because they aren't committed enough to finish.

Pete

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
year.

But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
ADIZ.

My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.

Neil

The Interagency Airspace Working Group does not include the airline
industry. It appears the principals in this matter is the USSS and DoD,
TSA lacks any technically competant management - has from day one
(don't ask me how I know...)

Since GA represents such a small minority, it is just plain
'low-hanging fruit' that provides the appearance of positive action on
aviation security. That is it, plain and simple. There are no, zero,
nada REAL quantitative studies or Operations Research concerning the
optimum method to secure DC airspace without restricting freedom of
movement. This was a simple, knee-jerk action that there has been
little reason to go back and re-examine, unlike the 30-minute
'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
perspective.)

The only way at this point any progress will be made is if a big GOP
donor (perhaps one of the beloved 'Rangers') is shot down by mistake.

unlike the 30-minute
'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
perspective.)

What rule is this?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

unlike the 30-minute
'pee-in-your-pants' rule (which REALLY made no sense from a tactical
perspective.)

What rule is this?

On flights to DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the last
30 minutes of the flight.

On flights departing DCA, all passengers remain in their seats for the
first 30 minutes of the flight.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:32:10 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in KqjCe.1930$Im3.1442@trndny07::

I'm afraid I no longer remember who made that comment, but I believe it was a
military officer.

Well, it's "their" job, just the way a junkyard dog's job is to bite
fence jumpers at night. You want a vicious dog that will
enthusiastically deter the larcenous, but you want to keep him chained
firmly under control during the day when cash customers are around.
This ADIZ is beginning to look like the dog has slipped its leash.


While I don't deny the vulnerability of DC to certain potential aerial
and other modes of terrorist attack, I believe the cost in restriction
of freedom is far greater than the actual good the DC ADIZ
accomplishes toward security. If those who govern us fear for their
well being in the traditional seats of government, they should retreat
to their bunkers to convene Congress, not revoke the peoples' rights
out of convenience.

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:52:00 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

But I am left wondering how useful this laser warning
system will be during the day. There's sure to be pilots who
say, "I didn't see no flashing red red green light."

Right. But the visual laser warning does provide an additional medium
for contacting ADIZ violators.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
year.

But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
ADIZ.

My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.

Neil



IMHO, the biggest problem we have is the proliferation of 'laws' that are issued as a knee jerk reaction to some
singular event. Forget that there are already laws in place that would cover the event; the new 'law' appeases the media
and is meant to show that the politicians are doing their job. There are all kinds of these 'laws' that are selectively
enforced. How may times have you (not you specifically Neil ;-) seen an idiot driver doing some stupid human trick while
driving that was obviously illegal, but no-one did anything about it. This selective enforcement dilutes any enforcement
of laws that should really count.

Some say that freedom is not free; well I think that should be edited to say that freedom is not safe. We routinely risk
our lives driving down the road at 60 mph with opposing traffic doing the same, but we are free to do so. Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car; the way
our society is going we are all going to be locked into a little room (airliner cockpits?) so nobody will be hurt. Will
we be free then?

Dan d.

Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car;

Have you ever driven in New Jersey?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.