IP: Re: Iridium wants to provide real time airline "Black Box"services

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

BTW when I said

> > As a pilot also, is this person right.
> >
> > Dave
 I meant to put !!!! after the word right

As a pilot also, is this person right!!!!!

(makes a difference)

> X-Sender: ooblick () minion netpolicy com (Unverified)
> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:51:09 -0400
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Mikki Barry <ooblick () netpolicy com>
>
> Unfortunately, s/he is absolutely correct.  And the regulations are even 
> more idiotic than that in many case.  I am a part-time flight instructor 
> in the DC area who is currently grounded.  I have had to brush up on 
> "intercept procedures" in case an F-16 decides that I am doing something 
> it doesn't like.  If I do not comply with these procedures (which would be 
> difficult while staring at sidewinder missiles), I will be shot down.  It 
> is more likely than not that this would result in the death of all on board.
>
> As a pilot, you must contact Flight Services in order to receive all 
> relevant "notams" (notices to airmen) prior to most flights.  The notams 
> must be complied with or there could be administrative action taken 
> against you regarding your privilege to fly.  Suddenly, this has been 
> changed and the penalty can be execution.
>
> While all pilots do their best to comply with all notams, resetricted 
> areas, prohibited areas, military operations areas, and stages of airspace 
> (each having a different restriction), it is very difficult for us to 
> comply when they change on a daily basis.  For example, the prohibited 
> area above Camp David changes almost daily as to its size. We are also 
> required to avoid all "sporting events and outdoor gatherings" by staying 
> at least 3 miles away.  Of course, most small, low flying planes can't 
> tell whether something is a sporting event or outdoor gathering until they 
> are almost on top of it.  The latest notam tells us to stay away out of 
> "close proximity" to the 25 nm "no fly zones" around DC and NYC.  Of 
> course, "close proximity" is not defined, therefore we don't know if that 
> means 2 miles or 100 feet. These notams confuse me, a 1500 hour 
> commercially rated multi engine flight instructor.  Imagine what they are 
> like for a student pilot!
>
> Within the "no fly zones," only part 91 operators are prohibited from 
> flying.  Part 91 is generally private aircraft that are not for hire by 
> others.  This includes flight instruction, private trips, commercial 
> pilots flying private aircraft, corporate jets, crop dusters, and 
> others.  However, part 135 is authorized.  Part 135 includes air taxi 
> services using aircraft as small as single engine four seaters, or up to 
> chartered 777 aircraft.  They fly out of many different airports, 
> including those with NO FAA security whatsoever. Yet because they are 
> being paid to fly, they are allowed to fly in these zones that I am 
> prohibited from.
>
> Further, all aircraft that were located at airports within the "no fly 
> zones" on 9/11 are still there.  Nobody is allowed to remove their 
> aircraft from the 25 nautical mile areas, and take them to other airports 
> outside the zone.  Only aircraft based at Washington National were allowed 
> to exit.  Each one was screened through security, sharp objects like 
> tweezers and leathermen tools (used to fix in flight problems) was taken 
> from them.  Very strange when you consider that they were not allowed to 
> carry passengers, and most were flying solo (unless more than one pilot 
> was required by FAA regulations for that particular aircraft).  Other 
> "flush times" were organized for last weekend for my particular airport 
> out of Gaithersburg, Maryland but cancelled once the NSC found out that 
> most of the pilots actually wanted out and wanted to relocate their 
> aircraft to places where they could be utilized.  There is another 
> possibly scheduled for this weekend, but no procedures have been 
> officially published yet.  Given that there are 41,000 pilots currently 
> trapped in these zones, we are hoping that air traffic control can handle 
> all of us since we are all required to file flight plans (which is 
> something new...under visual flight rules, one could often go from place 
> to place without a plan if they avoid all restricted airspace).
>
> Most pilots that I know have no problem complying with even highly 
> restrictive procedures, so long as we know that they are for a good 
> purpose.  In these cases, there is no security purpose that most of us can 
> see.  Faster, heavier airplanes that can carry far more are allowed to 
> operate in these zones simply because an unscreened passenger who has gone 
> through no security procedures has hired them. Meantime, certain airports 
> have been exempted from the "no fly" requirements for no apparent reason 
> other than they have special interests operating from them.  These include 
> White Plains, New York, and Leesburg and Manassas, VA.  From these 
> airports, part 91 operators may operate under instrument 
> conditions.  Whether students can fly supervised solos under visual 
> conditions is unclear. Certificated pilots cannot.
>
> While many have said that flight restrictions are necessary for security 
> purposes, and those of us who are inconvenienced are merely whiners, there 
> are significant implications for the American economy, for real security, 
> and for civil liberties.  What they are doing for flight they may do for 
> driving.  The precedent for restricting transportation on the grounds of 
> unstated security interests has been set.  And it affects us all.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/