GA headed for regulatory trouble

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... ???