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
Thanks for the ping, but there is way too little intelligence on this thread. It's sad to see that the mods have joined the "Make me safe at any cost" crowd.
I agree. This is not worthy of Free Republic. Something about that first word...
Just for the record, the Lead Moderator thinks it's "reasonable" to discuss having the military shoot down off-course passenger aircraft, regardless of the legality, morality, or practicality of doing so.
Advocating violence against innocent people both in the air and on the ground is not "off limits" after all here on FR (as long as it is aimed at a minority group and intended to save a government building).
Do you see troll? I have to wear this to foil hat to prevent your black hole of intelligence from stealing my I.Q.
ZOT
Not for a chemical or biological weapon.
|
Hey there mr. smarty pants, you can load a LOT of stuff on a plane like that and kill a LOT of people. There are going to be too many dignitaries from all over the world there, not to mention most of our OWN government. All in one place. Don't that sound like a great target to ya? Or are you just pissed because YOU won't get to fly the plane into the city to detonate YOUR dirty bomb?
Pick your own knuckles up off the floor before replying troll.
Knuckledraggers called names by bedwetter - film at 11.
Hard to argue with the fact that a loaded airliner is more dangerous then a small single or double engine aircraft but is that really important? I own a Piper Cherokee, a small single engine craft with a total payload capacity of about 1200 lbs including fuel and passengers. I weigh about 200 lbs and fuel ways about 8 lbs per gallon. The engine burns about 9-10 GPH, so I could load 10 gallons of fuel (80 lbs)+ Me (200 lbs) + 920 lbs of high explosive in this tiny plane and do what i believe to be massive damage in the area. If I were flying a twin you could double the explosive weight thereby having almost a ton with which to wreak havoc. This restriction is for one day and I frankly can't see what all the whining is about. BTW, referring to us as knuckle dragger's only points out your extreme bias and therefore compromises your credibility. I am a member of AOPA and have never even heard the issue mentioned. I believe that you, sir, are a monumental fraud who is still seething over his party's catastrophic humiliation on Nov 2nd.
If we have to close Pennsylvania Ave. 247/7/365, it's proof positive we haven't deported and jailed enough right-wingers yet!!!
ROFL!! Knuckle-draggers, indeed...MUD
It must torque the jaws of the left when we take folks like fat teddy's
disparaging comments about "Right Wing KnuckleDraggers" and use
it against them! :^D
Anything that torgues fat teddy's jaw is a good thing, imho...MUD
5.56mm
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.