Avoiding The ADIZ

F

flyifrvfr

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
125
Display Name
Display name:
flyifrvfr
This is for those who fly in or near the ADIZ. I often use the VOR 34 approach at KDMW to train my IFR students. The biggest problem with this approach is when you do the hold to begin the approach, you are only 3 miles away from the ADIZ. If you are flying raw data with no DME or GPS, you can easily stray into the ADIZ and not know it.

The fix is to file an ADIZ flight plan from EMI VOR to KDMW. Contact Potomac Approach and get a sqwauk code. They will understand what you are doing and this will prevent you from getting violated if you happen to go too far in the hold.

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060413/NE-3/dmw_vor_rwy_34.pdf
 
Last edited:
good info victor , but my fix is i stay away from that area ,plus i'm VFR only. Dave G
 
Shipoke said:
good info victor , but my fix is i stay away from that area ,plus i'm VFR only. Dave G
Click to expand...

I used to instruct in the ADIZ. There are some really cool airports located within the Adiz, so try to get some instruction on how to operater inside of it. I hate to say it, but the ADIZ is really easy to understand and operate within it.
 
Which only further points out how useless it is ... except at making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens and pouring countless tax $'s down a rat hole ...

flyifrvfr said:
I hate to say it, but the ADIZ is really easy to understand and operate within it.
Click to expand...
 
flyifrvfr said:
This is for those who fly in or near the ADIZ. I often use the VOR 34 approach at KDMW to train my IFR students. The biggest problem with this approach is when you do the hold to begin the approach, you are only 3 miles away from the ADIZ. If you are flying raw data with no DME or GPS, you can easily stray into the ADIZ and not know it.

The fix is to file an ADIZ flight plan from EMI VOR to KDMW. Contact Potomac Approach and get a sqwauk code. They will understand what you are doing and this will prevent you from getting violated if you happen to go too far in the hold.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this suggestion is that if you fly the approach multiple times you need multiple ADIZ flight plans filed, and you need to open a new one for each approach. Otherwise, the insurance policy is void after the first ADIZ penetration.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
The only problem with this suggestion is that if you fly the approach multiple times you need multiple ADIZ flight plans filed, and you need to open a new one for each approach. Otherwise, the insurance policy is void after the first ADIZ penetration.
Click to expand...

Not true Ed. You file one flight plan with an enroute time of 1 and 1/2 hours. In the remark section, you put down ADIZ flightplan. When you contact Potomac Approach tell them you are going to do a couple of practice VOR approaches into KDMW with the missed and hold as published. The controller will give you a sqwuak code and tell you to remain clear of Bravo. Other than that, you can penetrate the ADIZ and do the approach as many times as you like.

The instance you describe above would be valid if the controller said sqwauk 1200 frequency change to advisories approved. However, the controller knows you want to do multiple approaches, because this is what you tell him. I do this approach very often and I file the ADIZ flight plan as described and I have never run into the problem you suggest. Try it once, you will be suprised how well it works, and it takes the possibility of an ADIZ violation out of the equation.
 
Clearly, Potomac Approach is learning how to be more flexible in its application of the ADIZ rules. Bravo!:yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
Clearly, Potomac Approach is learning how to be more flexible in its application of the ADIZ rules. Bravo!:yes:
Click to expand...

They are indeed Ron! Potomac would rather work with you instead of having the extra duties of coordinating an interception. I do this procedure on a daily basis and they really are happy that someone is being proactive. The first time I did this the controller stated this was an excellent idea and good situational awareness.

This is how the idea was spawned. I was with an IFR student and we planned on doing multiple VOR 34 @ KDMW and holding at the VOR. I called Potomac Approach and asked for flight following to help me remain clear of the ADIZ. The controller said, " That isn't my job and I am too busy, remain clear of the ADIZ." I did and we completed the lesson safely. I then came up with the solution which was to file an ADIZ flight plan from EMI VOR to KDMW. The FSS briefer was suprised the computer took the plan, but I reminded him the ADIZ flight plan is nothing more than an IFR flight plan with ADIZ in the remarks section. He agreed and remarked that this was an excellent idea.

Once airborne I contacted Potomac Approach and told them I have an ADIZ flight plan on file and I am doing multiple VOR approaches into KDMW with published holds and missed. He gave me the code and said, " proceed as requested, remain clear of bravo." The controller remarked the hold over the VOR is 3 miles from the ADIZ and If I need to go into the ADIZ it would not be a problem.

In closing, I am giving everybody who practices this approach VFR a way to ensure they do not violate the ADIZ while practicing this approach. The ADIZ is only three miles from the hold and one can easily stray into the ADIZ. You have to file this plan from EMI VOR to KDMW and file the plan for the amount of time you may be practicing near the ADIZ. I use 1 1/2 hours, this allows multiple approaches and holds.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Clearly, Potomac Approach is learning how to be more flexible in its application of the ADIZ rules. Bravo!:yes:
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a pilot who got violated from leaving the ADIZ by barely a few miles and reentering - while keeping the squawk? Will they say "sorry" and expunge the record?
 
mikea said:
Wasn't there a pilot who got violated from leaving the ADIZ by barely a few miles and reentering - while keeping the squawk? Will they say "sorry" and expunge the record?
Click to expand...

Yes there was, and yes, despite what Victor has written, it is an ADIZ violation to exit and re-enter, and no, ATC can't waive the penalty or the requirement.

The applicable NOTAM section:

NOTAM Number : FDC 6/2550 Issue Date :February 28, 2006 at 18:43 UTCLocation :Metropolitan Area ADIZ, Washington, District of ColumbiaBeginning Date and Time :March 01, 2006 at 17:00 UTCEnding Date and Time :Until further notice

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area ADIZ

A. Operating requirements in the DC ADIZ: The following procedures apply within the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan ADIZ. No person may operate an aircraft, including ultralight vehicles, unmanned air systems, civil aircraft, and public aircraft, unless that person follows the rules of 14 CFR and meets the following standard DC ADIZ operating requirements:

3. Before departing from an airport within the DC ADIZ or before entering the DC ADIZ, pilots must file and activate an IFR flight plan or, for VFR, a DC ADIZ flight plan. For VFR operations, the FAA will consider the DC ADIZ flight plan to enter/exit the DC ADIZ closed when the pilot lands aircraft at an airport within the DC ADIZ or when the aircraft exits the DC ADIZ. Once an aircraft exits the DC ADIZ, it cannot re-enter the DC ADIZ on the same flight plan.
 
I think the "no re-entry on the same plan and code" rule applies to when you leave the area, squawk 1200, and then want to come back after they've closed out your strip -- that's a definite no-no. If they keep you in continuous contact, I can't see how the system would know you left the ADIZ. I've done that a few times when coming from the east and my route took me through the northeast mouse-ear out by Martin State, out to the northwest of there to stay clear of BWI departures off 33, and then back in to get to Gaithersburg.
 
mikea said:
Wasn't there a pilot who got violated from leaving the ADIZ by barely a few miles and reentering - while keeping the squawk? Will they say "sorry" and expunge the record?
Click to expand...

If the controller says, " Cessna 12345 you are clear of the ADIZ squawk 1200, frequency change approved." You may not keep the code and turn around and re-enter the ADIZ, the ATC strip on you is closed.

Remember fellas, when you file an ADIZ flight plan the FSS briefer puts the plan into the computer as an IFR flight plan with ADIZ in the remarks. Trying to re-enter the ADIZ as the pilot above did is like cancelling an IFR flight plan and entering IMC in controlled airspace without a flight plan or clearence.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think the "no re-entry on the same plan and code" rule applies to when you leave the area, squawk 1200, and then want to come back after they've closed out your strip -- that's a definite no-no.
Click to expand...

You can speculate all you want, but the NOTAM is quite clear--leave the ADIZ and the FAA considers your ADIZ flight plan closed/canceled. The NOTAM doesn't mention any of the "squawk 1200" or other hypotheticals you offer, and it clearly states that your exit & re-entry en route to Gaithersburg is illegal.

Folks, you can do whatever you want, but if the NOTAM clearly says "THOU SHALT NOT" you are dangling your certificate over an active shredder if you decide not to abide by the strict letter of the law.

If they keep you in continuous contact, I can't see how the system would know you left the ADIZ.
Click to expand...

I'm just an idiot programmer and I am not much better as a security scenario planner, but I can readily imagine both how to code that and why I'd want it coded.
 
Last edited:
Plus they have a non-ATC type who knows where the ADIZ boundary is looking over the shoulder of the ATC type at the rdr position waiting for someone to make his day.

Ed Guthrie said:
Quote:
If they keep you in continuous contact, I can't see how the system would know you left the ADIZ.

I'm just an idiot programmer and I am not much better as a security scenario planner, but I can readily imagine both how to code that and why I'd want it coded..
Click to expand...
 
Ed Guthrie said:
You can speculate all you want, but the NOTAM is quite clear--leave the ADIZ and the FAA considers your ADIZ flight plan closed/canceled. The NOTAM doesn't mention any of the "squawk 1200" or other hypotheticals you offer, and it clearly states that your exit & re-entry en route to Gaithersburg is illegal.
Click to expand...
I'll remember to tell the controller that the next time I get sent that way -- "Sorry, Potomac, unable to accept that vector -- you'll have to keep me inside the ADIZ because the NOTAM says I can't reenter west of Baltimore." That will really go down well.

Victor's got it right -- work with the controllers and they'll work with you. The system can't tell the difference between IFR and VFR when you're on a DC ADIZ flight plan, and the strip doesn't drop out just because you cross a line drawn on the scope. OTOH, once you switch to 1200, your strip is dead, and your squawk goes back in the pool for other use and you can't get it back.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
You can speculate all you want, but the NOTAM is quite clear--leave the ADIZ and the FAA considers your ADIZ flight plan closed/canceled. The NOTAM doesn't mention any of the "squawk 1200" or other hypotheticals you offer, and it clearly states that your exit & re-entry en route to Gaithersburg is illegal.

Folks, you can do whatever you want, but if the NOTAM clearly says "THOU SHALT NOT" you are dangling your certificate over an active shredder if you decide not to abide by the strict letter of the law.



I'm just an idiot programmer and I am not much better as a security scenario planner, but I can readily imagine both how to code that and why I'd want it coded.
Click to expand...

Ed, you clearly do not understand how the ADIZ operates. You can cut and paste a Notam, but it doesn't mean you understand it. Please re-read my previous posts, but I will mention how the ADIZ works again here so you have multiple references. An ADIZ flight plan is nothing more than an IFR flight plan with the words ADIZ in the remarks section. Your ADIZ flight plan is entered into center's computer and a briefing strip is created just for you. When you contact Potomac Approach, approach issues you a squawk code. Now your flight plan is active. You can enter the ADIZ and exit the ADIZ and re-enter the ADIZ as long as you remain in contact with approach, and approach keeps your plan active in the computer.

If approach tells you to squawk 1200, the computer drops you and you may not re-enter the ADIZ unless a new flight plan is filed, and a new briefing strip is created for you. This is what happened to the pilot mentioned in a previous post. You should get some instruction on how the IFR system works with regards to the center's computer system, and how flight plans are created. I am a very experienced pilot/instructor who operates in and around the ADIZ on a daily basis. Ron is a very experienced pilot/instructor who operates in and around the ADIZ on a daily basis. He and I both are trying our best to educate you on this subject.
 
Last edited:
I may be missing the point here, but what I think Ed is conveying is the wording of the NOTAM can be used against you in enforcement proceedings, regardless of the practicality of the situation. Why challenge the system at its weakest point...
 
flyifrvfr said:
Ed, you clearly do not understand how the ADIZ operates. You can cut and paste a Notam, but it doesn't mean you understand it. Please re-read my previous posts, but I will mention how the ADIZ works again here so you have multiple references. An ADIZ flight plan is nothing more than an IFR flight plan with the words ADIZ in the remarks section. Your ADIZ flight plan is entered into center's computer and a briefing strip is created just for you. When you contact Potomac Approach, approach issues you a squawk code. Now your flight plan is active. You can enter the ADIZ and exit the ADIZ and re-enter the ADIZ as long as you remain in contact with approach, and approach keeps your plan active in the computer.

If approach tells you to squawk 1200, the computer drops you and you may not re-enter the ADIZ unless a new flight plan is filed, and a new briefing strip is created for you. This is what happened to the pilot mentioned in a previous post. You should get some instruction on how the IFR system works with regards to the center's computer system, and how flight plans are created. I am a very experienced pilot/instructor who operates in and around the ADIZ on a daily basis. Ron is a very experienced pilot/instructor who operates in and around the ADIZ on a daily basis. He and I both are trying our best to educate you on this subject.
Click to expand...

Victor, your assumption that the ADIZ security stops at the workings of an IFR/VFR flight plan is at best severely naive. I suggest you get some training before you send a student into a 90 day minimum & mandatory suspension.
 
Steve said:
I may be missing the point here, but what I think Ed is conveying is the wording of the NOTAM can be used against you in enforcement proceedings, regardless of the practicality of the situation. Why challenge the system at its weakest point...
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'll remember to tell the controller that the next time I get sent that way -- "Sorry, Potomac, unable to accept that vector -- you'll have to keep me inside the ADIZ because the NOTAM says I can't reenter west of Baltimore." That will really go down well.
Click to expand...

"I read the NOTAM but didn't believe it actually meant what it said" will go down well at your certificate revocation hearing.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Victor, your assumption that the ADIZ security stops at the workings of an IFR/VFR flight plan is at best severely naive. I suggest you get some training before you send a student into a 90 day minimum & mandatory suspension.
Click to expand...

Ed, you may not believe me when I say this but, I am not trying to get into a ****ing match with you. Please don't take my statement as a zing when I said you should get some instruction on the system. I fully understand the workings of the ADIZ and its intent. I fly in and around it everyday.

Ron, I do appreciate your saying that I have it right. You are a well respected man on this and other boards.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I may be missing the point here, but what I think Ed is conveying is the wording of the NOTAM can be used against you in enforcement proceedings, regardless of the practicality of the situation. Why challenge the system at its weakest point...
Click to expand...

I am working with the system, not challenging it.
 
flyifrvfr said:
Ed, you may not believe me when I say this but, I am not trying to get into a ****ing match with you. Please don't take my statement as a zing when I said you should get some instruction on the system. I fully understand the workings of the ADIZ and its intent. I fly in and around it everyday.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is what goes on behind the scenes and I doubt anyone on this webboard is privy to all of the security measures. FWIW, ATC isn't calling the shots--HLS, TSA, and DOD are. According to the applicable NOTAM, your suggested system for working the VOR approach is good for one absolutely assured "get out of jail free", but not for repeated entries & exits. ATC might ignore the technicallity, and you might get away with it forever. Then again, one morning HLS/TSA may inject an automated monitoring software code (or one might be in place already), the controller may forget to note your first ADIZ penetration & exit and fail to revalidate your squawk code for a subsequent ADIZ penetration, and after the second entry you may then receive a registered letter informing you that you punched the ADIZ twice on the same flight plan in clear violation of the applicable NOTAM. You'll then find yourself sitting in a certificate suspension hearing with your only defense being, "but I didn't think you guys were serious". IMO, not a great plan.

I'm merely telling folks the plan doesn't conform to the NOTAM. Choose wisely.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
What you don't understand is what goes on behind the scenes and I doubt anyone on this webboard is privy to all of the security measures. FWIW, ATC isn't calling the shots--HLS, TSA, and DOD are. According to the applicable NOTAM, your suggested system for working the VOR approach is good for one absolutely assured "get out of jail free", but not for repeated entries & exits. ATC might ignore the technicallity, and you might get away with it forever. Then again, one morning HLS/TSA may inject an automated monitoring software code (or one might be in place already), the controller may forget to note your first ADIZ penetration & exit and fail to revalidate your squawk code for a subsequent ADIZ penetration, and after the second entry you may then receive a registered letter informing you that you punched the ADIZ twice on the same flight plan in clear violation of the applicable NOTAM. You'll then find yourself sitting in a certificate suspension hearing with your only defense being, "but I didn't think you guys were serious". IMO, not a great plan.

I'm merely telling folks the plan doesn't conform to the NOTAM. Choose wisely.
Click to expand...

Ed, you still don't understand that it is not a technicality. Your flight plan remains active as long as the controller keeps your squawk code assigned too you in the computer. I think this is the fifth time I have said this, and I can't be more clear. I have also said what I am doing is legal. Once you're told to squawk 1200 and the controller closes your plan out, you may not re-enter the ADIZ. You can sit there and say, "but the notam, but the notam," and you are still wrong. Finally, if what I am doing is wrong, and what Ron does is wrong..and we have been doing this for a long time on a daily basis, why haven't we been violated yet.

Surely, with the coded software you think is in place, someone would have said, "Hey! these guys are violating the notam."
 
Just spoke with the supervisor at Potomac Approach -- what Victor says is the way it works. As long as you stay on their scope, keep your squawk, and stay with them on the radio, you can cross the line back and forth on a single flight. What you can't do is switch off freq and squawk 1200 outside the line and then come back in on the same code/plan. He agreed that a strict reading of the NOTAM would not allow this, but it really is OK, and they're doing it routinely in cases like the ones Victor and I mentioned.
 
I can also confirm what Victor is saying. I've done several sight-seeing flights where I left the ADIZ boundary and stayed in the vicinity, and working with Potomac, I kept my plan open and on the same squawk the whole time. Typically I filed MTN-MTN with "Sightseeing" in the comments, and then when I contacted Potomac, I briefly requested sightseeing for the area I wanted. Stayed on freq the whole time and let Potomac know as I moved from place to place. Much like dancing around a Bravo. Be professional and courteous with them and they're right friendly.
 
Thanks guys! I didn't mean for my thread to be so controversial, I intended the thread to be educational.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just spoke with the supervisor at Potomac Approach -- what Victor says is the way it works. As long as you stay on their scope, keep your squawk, and stay with them on the radio, you can cross the line back and forth on a single flight. What you can't do is switch off freq and squawk 1200 outside the line and then come back in on the same code/plan. He agreed that a strict reading of the NOTAM would not allow this, but it really is OK, and they're doing it routinely in cases like the ones Victor and I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Wow, everyone is right, who would have thunk it?

Technically its a violation and the gov't guys are looking the other way. How long before someone gets his hand slapped? What happens when a supervisor at Potomac (or a manager at FAA HQ trying to gain leverage in contract negotiations) get angry with a controller and decides to violate the controller for allowing this and for good measure violates the pilot.

From my point of view this is a very uncomfortable situation. Someone ought to be trying to get the NOTAM language changed to support the practice.
 
Arnold said:
Wow, everyone is right, who would have thunk it?

Technically its a violation and the gov't guys are looking the other way. How long before someone gets his hand slapped? What happens when a supervisor at Potomac (or a manager at FAA HQ trying to gain leverage in contract negotiations) get angry with a controller and decides to violate the controller for allowing this and for good measure violates the pilot.

From my point of view this is a very uncomfortable situation. Someone ought to be trying to get the NOTAM language changed to support the practice.
Click to expand...
Y'all are reading way more into this than there is. Potomac is linked to Huntress. As long as Huntress sees that the code is valid in Potomac's computer, all is well. The code remains valid until the strip is closed manually by the controller or by the aircraft squawking 1200. Unless the controller is deliberately trying to get the pilot in trouble by closing the strip but telling pilot "OK, continue," it's going to be just fine.

If you've ever met the folks from Huntress, you'd know they are not interested in racking up violations, just in protecting the capital. Work with them, and all will be well. Try to make life more difficult (say, by filing more flight plans or refusing to depart the ADIZ in the cases mentioned) and things will get worse for all of us.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Y'all are reading way more into this than there is. Potomac is linked to Huntress. As long as Huntress sees that the code is valid in Potomac's computer, all is well. The code remains valid until the strip is closed manually by the controller or by the aircraft squawking 1200. Unless the controller is deliberately trying to get the pilot in trouble by closing the strip but telling pilot "OK, continue," it's going to be just fine.

If you've ever met the folks from Huntress, you'd know they are not interested in racking up violations, just in protecting the capital. Work with them, and all will be well. Try to make life more difficult (say, by filing more flight plans or refusing to depart the ADIZ in the cases mentioned) and things will get worse for all of us.
Click to expand...
I have lttle doubt that the folks doing the day to day are on board with the practice. It's the HQ/management folks I worry about.

For decades the DOJ ignored certain pesky and not particularly useful provisions in the immigration laws and then after 9/11 everyone panicked and used those routinely ignored provisions as the basis for deporting folks - folks who were otherwise legal in every respect. Everyone in the trenches knew Ashcroft was being a jerk, but it had to go to a court before they were stopped, told you need to give notice before you start enforcing laws you've ignored for over 40 years, and reversed the deportations. Some poor guy who was otherwise in perfectly legal status and had been for decades ended up going through this nonsense and paying the legal bill.

So I hope you understand that I don't trust the queen no matter how well intentioned the worker bees are.
 
Arnold said:
So I hope you understand that I don't trust the queen no matter how well intentioned the worker bees are.
Click to expand...
Understood, but in this case, the queen doesn't know anything the worker bees don't tell her, and the worker bees have lots of motivation not to mess up their working lives further by strictly applying the words of the NOTAM.
 
Coming from an industry where "verbatim compliance" was the dictum of management, it only takes one "malicious compliance" to bring out a procedural weakness. This particular situation has all the appearance of a "gotcha" waiting to happen, to the detriment of all concerned. Someone with a little technical procedure savvy and political influence should pursue a clarification.

I think we all know what the real fix is here...

Ron Levy said:
Understood, but in this case, the queen doesn't know anything the worker bees don't tell her, and the worker bees have lots of motivation not to mess up their working lives further by strictly applying the words of the NOTAM.
Click to expand...
 
Ron makes an excellent point, one which I was going to make earlier. Imagine how many flightplans I would have to file if I wanted to do multiple approaches in the ADIZ. I would bombard the computer with them, thus creating a real backlog jam for IFR flightplans.
 
Ron Levy said:
Understood, but in this case, the queen doesn't know anything the worker bees don't tell her, and the worker bees have lots of motivation not to mess up their working lives further by strictly applying the words of the NOTAM.
Click to expand...

You statement assumes Huntress isn't independently running intelligent target filter algorithms, an assumption you neither know nor can prove.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
You statement assumes Huntress isn't independently running intelligent target filter algorithms, an assumption you neither know nor can prove.
Click to expand...

Ed, you win. You are the pilot's pilot. How dare me or Ron even try to converse with you on this subject. I apologize. I sent my certificates and my logbook to the FAA and I await my punishment I so rightly deserve.
 
flyifrvfr said:
Ed, you win. You are the pilot's pilot. How dare me or Ron even try to converse with you on this subject. I apologize. I sent my certificates and my logbook to the FAA and I await my punishment I so rightly deserve.
Click to expand...

Victor,

There's no reason for the condescending attitude. You and Ron are absolutely right that currently you can get away with it.

Ed's point, and he is right also, is that if they change their mind tomorrow (stupider things have happened, like the existence of the ADIZ in the first place), that you will not have a leg to stand on at your hearing.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
You statement assumes Huntress isn't independently running intelligent target filter algorithms, an assumption you neither know nor can prove.
Click to expand...
Your statement assumes Potomac does things without coordinating with Huntress, an assumption I know and can prove is wrong -- just call the supervisor station at Potomac TRACON. (540) 349-7526.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top