Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

Jay Masino wrote:

Bitching at our elected officials is our ONLY recourse.

I could be mistaken, but I think the previous point might have
been that bitching on USENET, while possibly therapeutic, has
no practical effect.

I agree that contacting elected officials is our only recourse.

I've been wanting to know for some time what AOPA is doing
in this fight. I'm wondering if it's time for a member barrage
of mail to congresscritters, demanding that the restrictions
be removed or that equally onerous restrictions be imposed upon
drivers and movements of trucks (a proven al-Quaida method
of bomb delivery)


And there isn't
another side of the debate. The government's side is baseless (atleast
to the extent that the threat from a Ryder truck is more of a threat than
GA).

Not to mention that it's unclear the ADIZ would prevent someone
bent on harm from violating it and completing their mission prior
to interception.

You mentioned that the DC-3 situation is different than what has been
described by the NOTAMS, by the AOPA, and in other postings. But you have
yet to actually make any actual statements that would demonstrate or
substantiate that the DC-3 pilots are not able to find a way to fly if
the really choose to. For example, even pilots who choose not to succumb
to the new security procedures, from my perception, could drive to the
next closest airport.

Actually, if you want to avoid both the FRZ and the ADIZ, you'd probably
have to drive an hour and a half to either Easton, Fredrick or Warrenton
(depending on where you live).

I think it's worth mentioning that DC traffic, and the amount of time
it takes to get from Point A to Point B, can be unimaginable except
to people who live near LA, Seattle, NYC and Boston.

I can't quite manage any cheer on this post . As I see it, the
degree of inconvenience the pilots in the DC gulag suffer is pretty
much beside the point. They are being unreasononably restricted in
their right to travel, for no clear reason and no clear result.
A dangerous precedent IMO.

Sydney