New Prohibited Area

Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Antonio

What do you all think of this?

I think it's great the current administration is encouraging the removal of
these irrational obstructions to liberty.

oh, wait...

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
What do you all think of this?

I think it's great the current administration is encouraging the removal
of
these irrational obstructions to liberty.

oh, wait...


Yeah, how could we have liberty with the right to buzz around nuclear sub
bases?

On 27 May 2005 07:14:39 -0700, "Antoñio"
wrote in
.com::


What do you all think of this?

I feel safer already. :-)

Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on straight
and staying out of the restricted areas.

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Just read my comments to the NPRM.

Suffice to say, the new prohibited area is stupid. Anyone who thinks
there's any point at all to it is a moron (just learned that word
today...sure is great!). It doesn't protect the sub base from anything, and
serves only to interfere with air navigation in the area.

Pete

Antoñio wrote:

Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Antonio


It makes me a much bigger supporter of the committee's recommendation to
close a lot more military bases. If they don't exist, they can't have a
prohibited area. What a stupid decision...


Matt

turbo wrote:

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on straight
and staying out of the restricted areas.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain why you don't think it's
unreasonable? Does this additional restriction on airspace do
anything whatsoever to protect the submarine base? Restricted airspace
for no logical purpose does not strike me as being in any way
reasonable.

I agree with you that we should make more of an effort to stay clear
of restricted airspace, but I don't agree that we should accept these
ridiculous restrictions without question. I am not a sheep.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"turbo" wrote in message news:izHle.10122$

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL.


WHAT?! The government doesn't want people buzzing our nuclear submarine
fleet or the missile-loading facilities?

Outrageous.

I'm curious what the GA population thinks of the friggin' HUGE closure of
the Nevada Test Site. I mean, how could they do such a thing to taxpayers,
not letting us fly over Area 51 and stuff? Sheesh.

;

-c

"John Galban" wrote in message

Restricted airspace for no logical purpose

Nuclear submarines, nuclear warheads.

I am not a sheep.

Try flying into the Nevada Test Site sometime.