GA headed for regulatory trouble

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:24:18 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Thank you. It's refreshing to hear a reasonable voice among the din
of bleating sheep.

I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the
direction of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more
restriction.

The thing that scares me is the attitude.
There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.
Actually, I could probably be accused of it myself, but I don't go
anywhere near restricted or controled space without nearly every tool at
my disposal to avoid an incursion.
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
survival of free flight that I love.


Thanks
Mike

Icebound wrote:
"PittsS1C" wrote in message
...

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical.
(but I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would
wander there again)
Are there any other reasonable consequences that would major deterrent?
Part of the problem is that it is not a big enough inconvenience for
violators.
I would rather that the aviation community help find a solution before an
irrational governmental body imposes useless painful legislation upon all
the rest of us. We need to "take care of our own".
Is "Federal pound me in the ass" prison enough? (with huge bail, so they
would be massively inconvenienced)

We as pilots would have to support it. Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)



In democracies, legislators should be defending themselves from aviator's
questions, rather than aviators cowering before the legislator's
impositions.

Before we go shooting these guys down, or incarcerating them for life,
consider their intent and the relative consequence of their actions.
Restrictions in any walk of life should be constantly questioned as to
purpose and effectiveness. Where imposed by the law of the land they must
be followed, of course, but they should continue to be questioned.


"Taking care of our own" should mean aggressively defending pilots whose
technical violation of a rule, has resulted in no significant consequence.


Why do we think there will be no violations, no matter what the penalty? In
all walks of life there are laws (prohibitions), and they all have
violations. The law says it is dangerous to drive too fast, some of us do
and get caught. Don't steal, burglaries do happen; don't cheat, Enron
happens; don't kill, murders do happen, etc. The law says don't fly here,
some do.

So the *regulations* hold *violations* down to a manageable level, that's
all.

If someone violates the don't-kill rule, somebody dies. When Enron happens,
ten of thousands of individual investors suffer for a very long time.

When an ADIZ violation happens, the usual consequence of the perpetrator's
action is.... uh... ???

"pittss1c" wrote in message
...
......
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
of free flight that I love.



Nothing will hurt the survival of free flight (or the survival of free
anything) any more than will the imposition of meaningless feel-good
regulations that have questionable social or scientific value. Certain
rules are necessary, but many are not, and all should be continuously
monitored and questioned.

As I said before, as long as there are rules, there will be violations...
there are in every walk of life, its inevitable. That's why we invent
enforcement and justice systems. In spite of them, Washington still has to
live with something like 250 murders per year; it can live with a few dozen
or even a few hundred ADIZ incursions. If the murderers have the right to
all the usual legal defence manoeuvrings within the rules of justice, so do
the aviators.

This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the survival
of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

or any evidence that no one with a whiz band GPS would do the
second and third?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Only "evidence" that I can sight (because I don't know the details of
most of the incursions) is the big one with the student and older guy in
the 150.

Jose wrote:
This attitude of "I don't need no stinking whiz bang GPS", followed by
busting restricted space, followed by, "I am going to fight you to the
death on trying to violate me": I think cases like this hurt the
survival of free flight that I love.

Do you have any evidence that the people who do the first are the same
ones that do the second and third?

Jose

I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the direction
of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more restriction.

The thing that scares me is the attitude.
There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.

Exactly.

Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
description leads a pretty sheltered life. I can name a half a dozen of
them, without straining. Luckily, out here in Iowa, they and their "Screw
you" attitude can do us little harm.

For now.

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hkwxe.123434$xm3.102855@attbi_s21...
I wasn't trying to be trollish with this message.
I just believe that these incursions aren't going to move in the
direction of removing regulation, but will just steer towards more
restriction.

The thing that scares me is the attitude.
There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.

Exactly.

Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
description leads a pretty sheltered life. I can name a half a dozen of
them, without straining. Luckily, out here in Iowa, they and their "Screw
you" attitude can do us little harm.

I've seldom seen that real-pilots attitude expressed, and would not endorse
it myself. However, I would certainly say that real pilots shouldn't *need*
to use GPS. (The planes I rent don't have it, and I don't yet consider it
cost-effective to buy a handheld one, although I do carry a handheld
COM/VOR/LOC for backup in IMC.)

--Gary

There are a lot of "real pilots don't use GPS" types out there.

Anyone who doesn't recognize at least a few pilots they know in this vivid
description leads a pretty sheltered life.

Actually, it's "real pilots don't REQUIRE GPS", but it gets lost in
translation. Actually, the ones that scare me are the ones who won't
fly in CAVU if the GPS is TU.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Obviously shooting these a couple of these planes down is impractical. (but
I firmly believe you wouldn't have to kill many before no one would wander
there again)

I daresay no one would fly anywhere near there again, wander or not.

We need to "take care of our own".

No, we need to "take care of the ^(*& regulation". If we turn against
each other we will have played right into our government's hands, which
is in the process of playing into the terrorists hands.

I was at a meeting at DXR Tuesday given by someone whose name escapes me
but is a head of the National Air Transportation Association, who has
been in congress, and who himself is a pilot (along with his wife). He
indicated that the TSA believes that the regulations on little airplanes
are dumb, that those regulations come from the Secret Service, not the
TSA, and that he believes that they will be eventually removed, piece by
piece. Well, I'll believe it when I see it, but it is heartening to
hear it from somebody who should know first hand what is happening.

We as pilots would have to support ["it" - which I presume to
mean more consequences for violators].

I do not feel I would have to support it.

Less incursions is safer for us
(the aviation community)

Less of something you measure. Fewer of something you count.



--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.