Report: More than 3,400 airspace violations since 9/11

Larry Dighera wrote:

Schumer is a Bonanza pilot.

This is Chuck Schumer? Since when? I can find no record of him having any sort
of certificate, and no aircraft is listed as being owned by him.

What makes you think he's unfriendly toward GA?

Oh, trivial matters like his pressure on the government to set up a DC type ADIZ
over New York and establish "air carrier standard for security" at GA fields.
Articles on these and other efforts of his can be found on the AOPA site by
searching for "Schumer."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
.com::

I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
time.

Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
down by the SAMs surrounding DC.

Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
a line marked DO NOT CROSS.

If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.

No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved. Of course there
will be a special security program so that jets owned by campaign
contributors will be able to get where they want.

Schumer is a Bonanza pilot. What makes you think he's unfriendly
toward GA?

Um, every public statement on GA he's made over the past four years?
Thanks George P for answering this one.

Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
they enter the FRZ.

It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
Attas from the Sheaffers.

And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
utterly preventable.

Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.

Bull****, Larry, Bull****. By that definition every slice of Class B
and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
arcs.

The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
don't appear to make us look too good.

And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.

It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
someone down. It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
believable. No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
GA pilot out of the sky.

-cwk.

-cwk.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:23:37 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in ZaRFe.141$PX4.132@trndny08::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Schumer is a Bonanza pilot.

This is Chuck Schumer? Since when? I can find no record of him having any sort
of certificate, and no aircraft is listed as being owned by him.

My assumption that Schumer was a Bonanza pilot was a result of
skimming this article:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/...eatures/10291/

From this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159099/posts
it seems he charter's aircraft instead, and got caught in a bit of a
financial scandal as a result.

What makes you think he's unfriendly toward GA?

Oh, trivial matters like his pressure on the government to set up a DC type ADIZ
over New York and establish "air carrier standard for security" at GA fields.
Articles on these and other efforts of his can be found on the AOPA site by
searching for "Schumer."

I was unaware of those issues. Thank you for the information.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:11:38 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in _mOFe.25$PX4.1@trndny08::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Not only that, but if the buildings are being defended by Stinger
missiles, they should be safer than the surrounding areas. Or am I
missing something?

In addition, one of the articles I read (I posted the link in another
thread) strongly implied that the batteries are moved in only during
periods in which the security level is heightened (IIRC, "orange" or
higher), so evacuation would've made sense during most of the last year.

So it would seem that the best way to prevent evacuations would be to
have the missile batteries in place all the time.

Not only that, but in a scenario like I described, those batteries
would almost certainly have to have independent authority to fire
at an incoming aircraft. Obviously that raises other concerns.

Snipola of rest

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?

Skywise wrote:

Not only that, but in a scenario like I described, those batteries
would almost certainly have to have independent authority to fire
at an incoming aircraft. Obviously that raises other concerns.

yep, imagine them being manned by the same kind of cop who
shot the Brazillian guy point blank seven times in the head (once,
I can understand, twice maybe, one has to be sure, three
times is perfectionism, but seven times? it was personal, and
he was enjoying himself, and I'd hate to see someone like him in
charge of a AAA battery...)

--Sylvain

On 25 Jul 2005 15:54:17 -0700, wrote in
.com::

In any case, you have to assume FSS/ATC screwups on an extremely
regular basis before their role becomes anything close to significant
in the overall picture.

I would disagree with that assessment. If our government's FSS/ATC
error resulted in the loss of life of one of our nation's citizen's,
it would be a tragic travesty of justice, and completely intolerable.

No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I forgot - what kind of planes were responsible for the only aviation
related terrorist attack in this country ever?

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

Jose wrote:
No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I forgot - what kind of planes were responsible for the only aviation
related terrorist attack in this country ever?

Some sort of dinky little twins. I think a company named Boeing made them.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On 27 Jul 2005 13:09:01 -0700, wrote in
. com::



Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
.com::

I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
time.

Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
down by the SAMs surrounding DC.

Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
a line marked DO NOT CROSS.

The boundary of the FRZ is such a 'Do Not Cross' line in my opinion,
not the DC ADIZ boundary. So again I ask you, please explain how the
DC ADIZ will effectively deflect _any_ hypothetical attack?

If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.

No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how restricting GA from operations within
the DC ADIZ bolsters your argument for increasing the size of the DC
ADIZ. Please enlighten me.

Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
they enter the FRZ.

It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
Attas from the Sheaffers.

So you agree that the DC ADIZ does _nothing_ to prevent an aerial
attack?

And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
utterly preventable.

Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.

Bull****, Larry, Bull****.

Now there's an argument that's difficult to refute. :-)

By that definition every slice of Class B
and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
arcs.

Your use of the word 'every' here is unfortunate, as the LAX Class B
(for one) is defined by surface features.

That aside, VFR flight into Class B airspace is accomplished by
contacting the controlling authority and voicing a request, unlike the
necessity for filing a flight plan in advance to enter the DC ADIZ, so
the example you chose is unfortunately flawed.

Class B airspace is created for a reasonable purpose: to separate
aircraft in congested terminal areas, unlike the DC ADIZ which was
created to give flights a chance to be interrogated before being shot
down in error by our military. Class B airspace serves a rational
function. The DC ADIZ is the result of hysteria and showmanship at
the expense of civil liberty; it serves only to palliate the lethal
danger in which our government places our airmen in the name of pseudo
security.

The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
don't appear to make us look too good.

And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.

It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
someone down.

I would contend that squeezing a trigger is several orders of
magnitude easier than countless hours of judicial due process. The
recent brutal shooting of an innocent civilian victim at the hands of
nervous LEOs in Britain comes to mind.

It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
believable.

The threat of the use of lethal force against our citizens by our
nation's military is quite believable to me. I suspect, that many
military pilots have little regard for civilian airmen as was
evidenced in the deliberate and wanton meteoric Ninja flight into
congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of the
required ATC clearance resulting in the "disintegration" of an ATP
rated pilot under ATC control in his Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000.
General Rosa found that a verbal reprimand was appropriate punishment
for the military airman responsible for that. So it appears the
military faces little consequence for killing citizens in error if
history is any guide.

No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
GA pilot out of the sky.

Oh some military cowboys might disagree with that contention.

But a policy of fining DC ADIZ violators for crossing an invisible
line in the sky does nothing to remove our governments lethal threat
against its airmen. And if Mica's proposed bill is implemented as
written (only airmen would be fined, not any individual who caused the
ADIZ violation), it only adds an additional penalty to the lethal
threat already in place solely against airmen. The DC ADIZ is inane,
and Mica's proposed $100,000.00 fine for pilots who erroneously enter
the DC ADIZ bolsters the intimacy of the DC ADIZ concept at the
expense of airmen, not all who cause the errors. It's a matter of
further injustice piled upon existing injustice.

I hate these restrictions as much as the next guy. But they are there. I
have Z E R O sympathy for some guy who doesn't know exactly where he is in
space at any given time on any given day or night. That includes myself.

But restricted we are. The answer is to live in the West (where I do) and
not worry ever about TFR's etc. (unless there is a fire.)

I love sitting back and watching you guys whine about the DC area when in
fact you can do N O T H I N G about it.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
On 27 Jul 2005 13:09:01 -0700, wrote in
. com::



Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jul 2005 07:47:02 -0700, wrote in
.com::

I agree that the ADIZ will not serve as the primary defense against all
aircraft-based terror attacks. It will however help some portion of the
time.

Please explain how the DC ADIZ will effectively deflect any
hypothetical attack. In my opinion, the DC ADIZ only provides an
identification buffer so friendly flights are not accidentally shot
down by the SAMs surrounding DC.

Well, this is part of my point. IF you are willing to concede that at
some point the gov't will attempt to shoot down planes which are
suspected of being engaged in a terrorist attack, then you need to have
a line marked DO NOT CROSS.

The boundary of the FRZ is such a 'Do Not Cross' line in my opinion,
not the DC ADIZ boundary. So again I ask you, please explain how the
DC ADIZ will effectively deflect _any_ hypothetical attack?

If the flight of the hypothetical Lear attack proposed by Brian
originated _within_ the existing DC ADIZ, anyone who proposed
increasing the size of the ADIZ would be seen as irrational.

No one but airlines inside the ADIZ. Problem solved.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how restricting GA from operations within
the DC ADIZ bolsters your argument for increasing the size of the DC
ADIZ. Please enlighten me.

Again, please explain how the current DC ADIZ provides any means of
stopping a hypothetical aerial attack. It's just there so our
military doesn't accidentally shoot down innocent civilians before
they enter the FRZ.

It's an escalation point. If you didn't have the ADIZ you;d have a lot
more planes coming close to the kill line and less time to sort out the
Attas from the Sheaffers.

So you agree that the DC ADIZ does _nothing_ to prevent an aerial
attack?

And, bottom line, I still maintain that the vast majority of these
incursions are unambiguously the fault of pilot screwups that are
utterly preventable.

Perhaps that's true, but such an attitude fails to address the
outrageousness of restricting flight in some of the world's busiest
airspace with the expectation of said restriction effectively
preventing incursions into it. There are no visible points on the
surface to identify the ADIZ boundaries. The DC ADIZ is simply a trap
for airmen, that is ineffective in accomplishing its purpose.

Bull****, Larry, Bull****.

Now there's an argument that's difficult to refute. :-)

By that definition every slice of Class B
and C airspace are equally outrageous because they are defined by DME
arcs.

Your use of the word 'every' here is unfortunate, as the LAX Class B
(for one) is defined by surface features.

That aside, VFR flight into Class B airspace is accomplished by
contacting the controlling authority and voicing a request, unlike the
necessity for filing a flight plan in advance to enter the DC ADIZ, so
the example you chose is unfortunately flawed.

Class B airspace is created for a reasonable purpose: to separate
aircraft in congested terminal areas, unlike the DC ADIZ which was
created to give flights a chance to be interrogated before being shot
down in error by our military. Class B airspace serves a rational
function. The DC ADIZ is the result of hysteria and showmanship at
the expense of civil liberty; it serves only to palliate the lethal
danger in which our government places our airmen in the name of pseudo
security.

The best chance we have to loosen the chains is to
prove that we're not a bunch of nincompoops and the numbers right now
don't appear to make us look too good.

And the numbers aren't likely to get any better, unless you know of
something that will cause them to change. The threat of large fines
pales in comparison to the threat of being shot down by our military.

It's a lot easier to actually apply the penalty of a fine than shooting
someone down.

I would contend that squeezing a trigger is several orders of
magnitude easier than countless hours of judicial due process. The
recent brutal shooting of an innocent civilian victim at the hands of
nervous LEOs in Britain comes to mind.

It's more likely to actually be used and therefore become
believable.

The threat of the use of lethal force against our citizens by our
nation's military is quite believable to me. I suspect, that many
military pilots have little regard for civilian airmen as was
evidenced in the deliberate and wanton meteoric Ninja flight into
congested Class B and C terminal airspace without benefit of the
required ATC clearance resulting in the "disintegration" of an ATP
rated pilot under ATC control in his Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000.
General Rosa found that a verbal reprimand was appropriate punishment
for the military airman responsible for that. So it appears the
military faces little consequence for killing citizens in error if
history is any guide.

No one really wants to shoot an innocent bumbling American
GA pilot out of the sky.

Oh some military cowboys might disagree with that contention.

But a policy of fining DC ADIZ violators for crossing an invisible
line in the sky does nothing to remove our governments lethal threat
against its airmen. And if Mica's proposed bill is implemented as
written (only airmen would be fined, not any individual who caused the
ADIZ violation), it only adds an additional penalty to the lethal
threat already in place solely against airmen. The DC ADIZ is inane,
and Mica's proposed $100,000.00 fine for pilots who erroneously enter
the DC ADIZ bolsters the intimacy of the DC ADIZ concept at the
expense of airmen, not all who cause the errors. It's a matter of
further injustice piled upon existing injustice.