The FAA continues it's war on General Aviation

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:03:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::


Certainly, go look up newspaper articles and other reports of the day. If
you find insurance mentioned even once as a cause of the reduced speed limit
report back. I was there and heard and read the reports of the time.
That's all the proof I need.

You probably believe Iraq has WMD too. :-(

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"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.


So Cessna XYZ flies into the area. How do the authorities know the pilot
has the training. Hold your log book up to the window so they can see it?
Dumb, dumb, dumb idea but typical of bureaucrats.


So Robinson R22 1234 flies anywhere. How do authorities...

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.

by "Tom Conner" Jul 7, 2006 at 03:55 PM


We haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the Very Light Jets have been
on
the market for a few years. These things are going to be Al Queda's best
friend. And Phil Boyer is going to keep on singing his swan song that GA
has no potential for terrorism.



But, but, but..., didn't all the lawmakers see the bumper sticker???! It
provides AOPA-level proof of the stupidity of the ADIZ:

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic...tion=1&id=2282

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:22:11 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:03:51 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in ::


Certainly, go look up newspaper articles and other reports of the day. If
you find insurance mentioned even once as a cause of the reduced speed limit
report back. I was there and heard and read the reports of the time.
That's all the proof I need.

However there were a lot of complaints and news stories about the
accident rates going up when the speed limit was put back up.


You probably believe Iraq has WMD too. :-(

They had them once, they are easy to hide. They even had a Mig 29
burried within a mile or two of the one airbase which was found only
when the wind exposed a tail fin.

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

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

On 7 Jul 2006 12:31:58 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

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.

Hooo, boy -- now THAT is a can of worms just waiting to be opened.

If you go down that road, I'm sure most of us can name a whole slew of
designtated airspaces that fail the "need to exist" to test.

No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the

Don't forget that the ADIZ changes shape and size which has caught a
number of well trained pilots including commercial.

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

Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.
Roger

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Call me a cynic, but the discussion to which you refer smells to me
like a typical congressional boondoggle.

The beauty of being a cynic is that it so greatly improves my ability
to predict the future. :-)


(I don't know where I read/heard that one, but I like it)

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

But, but sir, some of those (morons) pilots were F-16'ers from a nearby
AFB ...

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

Hooo, boy -- now THAT is a can of worms just waiting to be opened.

If you go down that road, I'm sure most of us can name a whole slew of
designtated airspaces that fail the "need to exist" to test.

No, I'm afraid the morons that continually blundered into the
Washington ADIZ have brought this down on us all. 'Tis a shame, since
this was entirely, 100% predictable -- and preventable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:57:41 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
::

This is completely unecessary and idiotic.
If the FAA had their way they would disallow any VFR flying in the US
period.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 28a -- July 10, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The DC ADIZ, A Growing Concern

NEW ADIZ TRAINING REQUIREMENT SPARKS CONCERN
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192664)
The seemingly ever-expanding security ring around Washington,
D.C., has AOPA officials hot under the collar. Last week, the FAA
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...06/06-5997.htm)
that would make taking an online course on flight procedures
within the Air Defense Identification Zone mandatory for anyone
flying VFR within 100 nm of the capital. And while there's nothing
wrong with the training per se, AOPA claims
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...60706adiz.html) the
proposed rule, in effect, expands the ADIZ and creates a form of
restricted airspace over a total of 117 airports (including AOPA's
home base at Frederick, Md.). "The FAA wants a de facto expansion
of the ADIZ," said Andy Cebula, AOPA's government expert. "That
could very well lead to more enforcement actions against pilots
who have not actually violated the ADIZ."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192664
HUGE AREA OF AIRSPACE, HUGE NUMBER OF PILOTS TARGETED
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192665)
One of the problems with the proposed rule is that it would affect
pilots who don't have the slightest inclination toward entering
the ADIZ. The proposed ring encompasses almost 8,000 square miles
of some of the busiest airspace in the country, and despite what
those inside the Beltway may think, Washington is not necessarily
foremost on the minds of the rest of us. There are numerous
destinations within the training ring that, for practical
purposes, are nowhere near the airspace that the online course is
geared to and the chances of an incursion are remote at best. "And
the FAA is not planning on marking the 'training ring' on any
charts," Cebula noted. "It's a 'gotcha' waiting to happen."
Although the new rule applies only to VFR flights, there's a
pitfall for IFR operations.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192665
FINDING ONLINE TRAINING FOR PILOTS -- FAA'S REQUIRED READING
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192666)
Regardless of the practical and philosophical issues presented by
the NPRM, the course itself
(http://www.faasafety.gov/ALC/course_...?categoryId=11)
appears to be a straightforward tutorial on not only the ADIZ but
on TFRs in general, which have become a fact of life for most U.S.
pilots. Ironically, navigating the FAA Web site to find the course
was perhaps at least as challenging as applying its contents might
be. There's no convenient link from the FAA homepage (hint, hint
to FAA webmaster) and it's buried in the FAA Safety pages.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192666