A thousand incursions a year?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

[...] Maybe we really aren't as good as we think?

I have always questioned the attitude that pilots are somehow better than
the rest of the world. There are some differences, to be sure...the
certification process eliminates people who are not fully committed. But it
does nothing to eliminate the idiots.

There are some drivers I know that are downright scary. I hope the
certification process would eliminate some of those from actually getting
a certificate. I mean, come on, there are folks I know that could
hide their own easter eggs, and these people are driving!

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
There are some drivers I know that are downright scary. I hope the
certification process would eliminate some of those from actually getting
a certificate.

Even restricting the survey to experiences described in this very newsgroup,
there is ample evidence of identically scary pilots. Many of us (most or
all of us, more likely) have personal knowledge of identically scary pilots.

The certification process does eliminate SOME of those drivers you know who
are downright scary. But not because they are scary; mostly it's just
because they aren't committed enough to finish.

Pete

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:45:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
_b8Ce.156431$x96.114510@attbi_s72::


But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more about
the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an ADIZ.

Admittedly, there is adequate human incompetence in any group you care
to name to assure that some errors will occur. But restricting 2,000
square miles of some of the busiest airspace in the entire world is
guaranteed to trap even competent airmen. To expect an invisible 100
mile (?) perimeter boundary to preclude accidental incursions is
absurd. Add to that the lack of surface landmarks to mark the
boundary, the obscuration of weather, night time operations, and the
inevitable ATC errors, and the volume of inadvertent DC ADIZ
incursions isn't so unreasonable.

Airing disparaging sentiment toward our ranks, while perhaps lending a
bit of public credibility to your arguments, does a disservice to our
fellows at a time when solidarity is crucial.

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
year.

But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
ADIZ.

My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message ...
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

But my point is, if there's a thousand incursions a year, what
does that say about the effectiveness and usefulness of the
ADIZ? My opinion is that it proves it's uselessness.

I find it hard to imagine that there are really 1000 incursions every
year.

But if there really are that many, I'm afraid this says volumes more
about the caliber of our pilots than it does about the utility of an
ADIZ.

My thought is that it says more about making rules that are so difficult
to follow. Keep in mind that these incursions are from all kinds of pilots
flying all kinds of aircraft. They aren't just from GA. I would think that
it would be reason to reflect on the value of a rule that results in so
many infractions and has proven time and again that it is incapable of
providing the intended "protection". That such reconsideration has so far
eluded them speaks volumes about the caliber of our rule makers.

Neil



IMHO, the biggest problem we have is the proliferation of 'laws' that are issued as a knee jerk reaction to some
singular event. Forget that there are already laws in place that would cover the event; the new 'law' appeases the media
and is meant to show that the politicians are doing their job. There are all kinds of these 'laws' that are selectively
enforced. How may times have you (not you specifically Neil ;-) seen an idiot driver doing some stupid human trick while
driving that was obviously illegal, but no-one did anything about it. This selective enforcement dilutes any enforcement
of laws that should really count.

Some say that freedom is not free; well I think that should be edited to say that freedom is not safe. We routinely risk
our lives driving down the road at 60 mph with opposing traffic doing the same, but we are free to do so. Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car; the way
our society is going we are all going to be locked into a little room (airliner cockpits?) so nobody will be hurt. Will
we be free then?

Dan d.

Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car;

Have you ever driven in New Jersey?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Blueskies wrote:

Maybe all
roads should have a vehicle proof divider to be sure we are not going to have a collision with that other car;

That's called a "Jersey Barrier."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

" Blueskies" wrote in
:

Snipola
IMHO, the biggest problem we have is the proliferation of 'laws' that
are issued as a knee jerk reaction to some singular event. Forget that
there are already laws in place that would cover the event; the new
'law' appeases the media and is meant to show that the politicians are
doing their job. There are all kinds of these 'laws' that are
selectively enforced. How may times have you (not you specifically Neil
;-) seen an idiot driver doing some stupid human trick while driving
that was obviously illegal, but no-one did anything about it. This
selective enforcement dilutes any enforcement of laws that should really
count.
Snipola

Going off on a tangent....

I have seen people break laws right in front of police officers.
I can only surmise the officer was busy looking elsewhere.

Then again, I have seen police officers break quite a few laws
themsleves. I have been nearly run off the road by officers
breaking traffic laws without use of sirens or lights. I have
seen officers speeding at speeds in excess of 80 in a 45 to
meet friends at an eatery. I've even seen a police car flip on
it's lights to run a red light only turn into a donut shop. No
joke!!

When I have the chance I've started reporting them or even
appraoching them personally on the topic.

Most recently I saw a sheriff car park in the fire lane in front
of my grocery store only to walk inside and go to the deli. I
politely walked up and asked, "If I were to park in a red zone
to come into get a sandwich, would I get a ticket?" He replied,
"yes." I thanked him and walked away. I made my point.

Some have said, and some may continue to say I'm effing nuts. But
the point is, law enforcement is NOT above the law.

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

End tangent.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:23:26 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

I have seen police officers break quite a few laws
themsleves.

You must have hung out with the LA Rampart Street LEOs:
http://www.lapdonline.org/releases/1999/99_09/ocop2.htm

Only a white guy would do that.

(no offense intended)

When I have the chance I've started reporting them or even
appraoching them personally on the topic.

Most recently I saw a sheriff car park in the fire lane in front
of my grocery store only to walk inside and go to the deli. I
politely walked up and asked, "If I were to park in a red zone
to come into get a sandwich, would I get a ticket?" He replied,
"yes." I thanked him and walked away. I made my point.

Some have said, and some may continue to say I'm effing nuts. But
the point is, law enforcement is NOT above the law.

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

End tangent.