Or maybe I'll just let kitty bite your knuckles...
Posted on 01/08/2005 3:56:03 PM PST by Robinson Winslow
GA banned from Washington, D.C., for inauguration D.C.'s mayor and AOPA's Boyer incensed over closures
For eight hours on Inauguration Day, Washington, D.C., and the skies for miles around it, will be completely off-limits to general aviation. Similarly, the streets of the nation's capital will be closed to vehicular traffic. Security officials have declared that President Bush's inauguration on January 20 is a "national security event," and the FAA, responding to orders from the Defense and Homeland Security departments, has issued a flight advisory prohibiting all general aviation VFR flight within or above the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).
"This is yet another example of GA being made a scapegoat in the name of security," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "All the evidence shows that GA aircraft do not pose a significant security threat — especially when compared to the devastation an airliner could cause. Yet the airlines are allowed to fly freely while GA pilots are essentially grounded."
The GA ban is in effect from 10 a.m. through 6 p.m. The only exception is for IFR aircraft landing or departing Washington Dulles International and Baltimore-Washington International airports, but the FAA anticipates that the GA ramps at both airports will fill up with VIP aircraft. Once all the parking is taken, even IFR aircraft will be diverted to airports outside the ADIZ.
AOPA is not alone in questioning the over-the-top security measures surrounding the coming inauguration. Washington Mayor Anthony Williams has complained that multiple checkpoints and street closures imposed in advance of the inauguration are excessive, snarling traffic, damaging businesses, impacting tourism, and choking commerce in the capital city.
"The GA community understands the need for reasonable security measures around the inauguration," Boyer added. "What we don't understand is why the measures being taken for this inauguration are so extreme. These measures are unnecessarily displacing thousands of pilots, restricting their freedom, and resulting in loss of income for those who use GA to conduct their business."
AOPA continues to question the need for the ADIZ at all, arguing that it is an inappropriate "solution" to a nonexistent problem. "A small airplane weighing less than a large SUV and traveling at 120 mph just doesn't pose the same kind of threat — or create as narrow a response window — as a fully loaded airliner traveling at 400 mph," Boyer explained. "The ADIZ simply doesn't reflect those differences. All it does is restrict GA without doing anything to protect Washington and its citizens from terrorists."
January 6, 2005
Well, I thought it was FUNNY (hint for the slow - read the article title and immediately read my response.)
I agree, nice to know so that when I go up for the Inauguration I won't be late. :)
I am a Conservative Member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. While I agree that a GA airplane can do VERY little damange, I also think this is a very small sacrifice on the grand scheme of things.
By calling it "Gestapo Tactics" you make yourself a troll. If you have something to say - say it - if you criticize and name call - be gone.
Suicide Hotline 1-800-BUSH-WON
Get over it.
What about Nextel? Direct connect? You'd have to get everyone's direct-connect code, although selected members may be the way to go.
Err, you mean Class B airspace? That's hardly a "no-fly zone," certainly not on the same order as the Presidential TFR.
Let's see how much people who defend this, complain when ground vehicle traffic is shut down for a Presidential motorcade, hmm?
That's a very dangerous precedent you're allowing to be set.
"I wholeheartedly support (fill in the blank) but public safety and security must be paramount." Hunting? Shooting? Owning one's own vehicle?
This "story" is petty compared to what Mayor Daley (D) did to GA here in Chicago. He had his demolition crews destroy the runways at Miegs Field literally in the middle of the night and used his executive powers to get rid of the airport and turn it into a park.
He said it was for security reasons so that small aircraft wouldn't be able to engage in terrorist attacks using Miegs Field as a base.
For anyone to say that a temporary restriction of flights around a single event where there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of people is comparable to this is to cheapen the phrase "Gestapo like tactics".
It's not just overflying "the inauguration;" it's overflying anything inside the red line:
Just as an aside, I used to work for a guy who was getting his pilots license.Understood, but you have to have a buffer big enough to have time to act on. You can't close airspace over a particular street and have an effective restriction.
Crashed and burned!
This is the first inauguration since 9/11. Doesn't it make sense to you, the reason for the tight security? Not to mention that in whacko sites like DU and others people have been planning for monthes on how they could get past security to kill the president. I'm sure the FBI is aware of this and have made the necessary preparations according to the threat level. And how much damage can a small plane do? Kill the president and alot of bystanders, thats what. Get real!
For a short-term restriction for an event like this? Absolutely! How many minutes away is Baltimore at 100 knots?
It has been about 15-20 years since I have flown, so I am not up on terminology or what changes may have taken place since then. However, at the time, if your plane did not have IFR instruments/clearance, the "upside-down wedding cake" WAS a no-fly zone. A Cessna 140 (which I was flying at the time) is not IFR rated.
I didn't think moonbats needed airplanes to fly?
My pleasure. I've added you. Thanks. :^)
You sound like a DU moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.