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

There are 39 TFR's this morning at 0700 when I checked them so I could
legally go flying, with one other reported but not displayed (ahaaa, I knew
it was bound to happen - TFR incognito)....
And it is fine that they only cover some fraction of 1% of the airspace,
unless it happens to be your airspace/airport, and your business is
bankrupt, and Admiral Loy giveth not a tinkers damn...

shamelessly cribbed from the web
You may have seen this before. It was written by Martin Niemoller about what
happened in Germany in the 1930s.

"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unions, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't
a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one to speak up."

Denny



"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
Captain Wubba wrote:

Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any

In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
Democrats and Republicans

Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think other
parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more will
seriously consider alternatives.

Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
"Hey, doesn't affect me, bro! Why should I sweat unreasonable
restictions on YOUR freedom, ain't bothering ME?"
Standard reaction from non-pilots. Sad to see it from a fellow
flier.

Actually, after listening to some of the pilots on this newsgroup, from
other parts of the country, that's actually the reaction that these
pilot's give, as long as it's not effecting THEIR part of the country.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

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

Yea, you're probably right, although, bitching on USENET keeps the
non-effected pilots on USENET paying attention to the problem.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message
...
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.

Well, in fact I think it's pretty clear that the ADIZ would NOT prevent
someone bent on harm from violating it and completing their missing prior to
interception. Especially if they were flying an airplane capable of actual
harm.

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 have to admit that, as bad as traffic *seems* here in Seattle, driving
around here isn't anything like driving around DC, LA, NYC, or Boston. I
have the most experience in DC, but have driven in all of those metro areas.
Even without traffic, in DC it was "no big deal" to travel 45 to 60 minutes
to get somewhere (driving from one DC suburb to another one on the other
side of the Beltway), and traffic could easily add 30 to 60 minutes to that
(longer if you were dealing with construction or an accident).

Here in the Seattle area, granted we do have a high degree of congestion per
highway mile, but the truth is we're not all that spread out yet. The worst
backups add only 15-20 minutes to a trip, and we're not usually driving
45-60 minutes to get somewhere in the first place. Without traffic, a 30
minute trip is a long one, at least within the Seattle metro area.

I don't even know why I mention it, except that I feel a bit guilty allowing
us to be lumped in with the other cities that really DO have it bad.

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.

No question. IMHO, it's not just the aviation restrictions. The whole
country is being swept by a taking of rights, with a side of "if you
complain, you're un-American" to go with it. Bad news all 'round.

Pete

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
So who *should* we vote for? Many on the left and the moderate left
(i.e. most Democratic candidates) see GA planes as toys for the rich
(i.e. *not* their constituency), and likely would have absolutely no
problem doing even more against our interests. What choice do we have?

I don't know. The best I've come up with so far is to just keep the
politicians in regular rotation. The less time any individual one spends in
office, the less damage they can do. Each new president spends a lot of
their initial time in office undoing the work the previous president did, so
that helps a bit. Who knows? Maybe a new Democrat president would disband
the Department of Homeland Security out of spite? (Yeah, I know...fat
chance. I can dream though).

I agree that, with respect to aviation, I don't see the Democrats being any
different from the Republicans (nor do I see them being that much different
with respect to many other things). But I know I'm not going to vote for
the current administration, and until they fix the way we vote, that leaves
no other rational choice other than to vote for "the other guy", whoever
that winds up being.

Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any
more than it was 3 years ago. Stadium TFRs? Sucks for banner
towers....pretty meaningless for the rest of us.

I don't know how you can say that. Any TFR is an impediment to navigation,
and the stadium TFRs are going to be near metro areas that already have
plenty of other impediments to navigation to deal with anyway. Any
impediment to navigation is just that: an impediment. That's not a good
thing, and I'd hardly call it meaningless.

Beyond that, as one of the people who IS affected, I find your "it doesn't
affect me" attitude pretty asinine. I hope you remember your current
position when the current thinking continues unabated and eventually DOES
affect you. It's only a matter of time.


Airports? Of the
thousands of public use airports in the US, how many have severe
restrictions on them that were not there before President Bush took
office? Maybe a dozen? Two dozen, at most?

First of all, I'm sure it's more than two dozen. Secondly, you are
forgetting that the airports most likely to be affected are also the most
likely to be the busiest, since the restrictions tend to appear in the more
populated areas.

[...] So what if the stadium TFR
doesn't really do anything? If it makes the public more comfortable,
I'm willing to accept that.

How far are you willing to go? The public would be MOST comfortable if you
were not permitted to fly at all.

IMHO, restricting one person's freedom for the purpose of making "the
public" or any other person "more comfortable" is just plain dumb. Being
willing to accept such restrictions is also just plain dumb. Do the math.

[...] Especially when compared to how things could *easily* be.

It can always be worse. How in the world is that in any way relevant, or
justification for the current situation?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

Well, in fact I think it's pretty clear that the ADIZ would NOT prevent
someone bent on harm from violating it and completing their missing prior to
interception. Especially if they were flying an airplane capable of actual
harm.

Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

I have to admit that, as bad as traffic *seems* here in Seattle, driving
around here isn't anything like driving around DC, LA, NYC, or Boston. I
have the most experience in DC, but have driven in all of those metro areas.
Even without traffic, in DC it was "no big deal" to travel 45 to 60 minutes
to get somewhere (driving from one DC suburb to another one on the other
side of the Beltway), and traffic could easily add 30 to 60 minutes to that
(longer if you were dealing with construction or an accident).

The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC even
without traffic.

Gently extracted from the mind of John Harlow;


In the US the only real choices at the presidential level are
Democrats and Republicans

Unfortunately, it only seems that way because most people don't think other
parties stand a chance. However, I think as more people get fed up with
personal liberties (and incomes) getting gobbled up by government, more will
seriously consider alternatives.

Check out www.lp.org if you have a few minutes.

The Republicans would be in bad shape if they lost 300,000 votes to the
Libertarian Party. There is a suspision that the LP cost the GOP a couple of
senate seats in the 2002 elections.




-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

Exactly. Two years later, I still haven't gotten over the absurdity of
restricting the airplanes that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,
while the airplanes that are the most dangerous were back up and flying
almost immediately. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC
even
without traffic.

Well, I wasn't portraying DC's traffic with the intent to justify DC area
residents driving to peripheral, unrestricted airports. Hopefully no one
took it that way. Even if people ARE used to driving 60 to 90 minutes just
to get anywhere, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to send them that far so
they can avoid the unreasonable restrictions that exist there in DC.

Pete