Your thoughts - Surrender my certificate for 90 days?

Anyone who thinks that the FAA is going to stand up and say "This is stupid" to a mandate from DHS - well, I want some of what they're smoking/drinking. FAA is a MINOR player in the government, they're not even a cabinet agency. Today I learned how my client (which IS a cabinet agency) is having it's cybersecurity policies dictated and micromanaged by DHS. Don't get me wrong, some of the policies are good, but others aren't and there's no recourse. DHS has most of the law enforcement/security clout in the Government now. Remember how folks were worried once about creating one big LE Agency and folding DEA/FBI/ATF/USMS/IRS/INS/USCS and pretty much every other non-military law enforcement gun-toter into it? We've got most of that now in DHS, and the worriers were right.
 
steingar said:
Actually Ron, you've been pretty blindly defending them and slamming David, to the point of telling me I had some sort of agenda because I pointed out you didn't know everything you claimed to.
Click to expand...

If you want to violate the ADIZ/SFRA go right ahead. There are consequences to that action. Violating the NOTAM/SFAR is not a good way to get it changed.

Telling someone they should respect the regulations that are in effect is not "blindly defending" those regulations. There are ways to challenge regulations and ways not to challenge them. Violating one that has specific consequences then whining about having to live with those consequences is not a good idea.
 
JeffDG said:
If you want to violate the ADIZ/SFRA go right ahead. There are consequences to that action. Violating the NOTAM/SFAR is not a good way to get it changed.

Telling someone they should respect the regulations that are in effect is not "blindly defending" those regulations. There are ways to challenge regulations and ways not to challenge them. Violating one that has specific consequences then whining about having to live with those consequences is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Ron specifically said he was quite certain that David had squawked 1200 in the ADIZ because of what he read in the FAA proceedings. I pointed out that he wasn't there and did not know what had transpired. I strongly doubted that an experienced pilot with a career in aviation would so wontonly violate the NOTAM, and I was aware that the ATC in that area was not always 100% effective because the same damn frakking thing happened to me.

I agree, vis-a-vis telling someone to respect the regulations is in no way blind worship, I do a fair bit of it myself. But assuming someone did something wrong because the FAA says so is.

The principle difference between my trouble and David's is I figured the guys at the FAA were lawyers (quick lawyer joke, why do lawyers wear neckties? Keeps the foreskins for coming up over their heads) who's first instinct would be to cut a deal. I therefore cut my own little deal, which was to own up to the bogus charge for which I was allowed to use my NASA thingie and waive the penalty. I would be tempted to say that this is another thing Ron thinks he knows and doesn't, but it was a long time ago, and things might have changed since. Might have, but I doubt it, some things never change.

David got nailed hard because he didn't roll over. Unfortunately, I can't entirely blame the FAA. They are charged with making certain we are all compliant. If they have made their determination and the subject of their inquiry still objects, when does not wanting to confess a lie become antiauthority? They must assume his behavior is the latter (like many of you did) and not the former. Personally, I admire him for sticking to his guns, but I can see how and why it worked against him.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I just want to know why some people so blindly defend the FAA and the SFRA.
Click to expand...

Where is anyone backing the SFRA? The SFRA is a fact of life whether one backs it or nor, and it has nothing to do with the FAA other than they are mandated to uphold the regulation since they are the agency that has that duty. If you have a problem with the SFRA, that's an issue to take up with the legislature since they make the laws, FAA just enforces them. I expect the FAA to be fair and reasonable, but I also expect them to be effective in light of their mandate. In this case, they were given evidence and a circumstance of violation with no defense presented to mitigate. What else could the judge do? He does have to follow procedures to keep his job, and you wouldn't want an unpredictable judge writing his own rules when you go before him. The FAA is not at fault here. I'm not a fan of the SFRA & ADIZ and the way it's being implemented, but thats all the chicken s--ts on Capitol Hill ordering that, not the FAA.
 
steingar said:
David got nailed hard because he didn't roll over. Unfortunately, I can't entirely blame the FAA. They are charged with making certain we are all compliant. If they have made their determination and the subject of their inquiry still objects, when does not wanting to confess a lie become antiauthority? They must assume his behavior is the latter (like many of you did) and not the former. Personally, I admire him for sticking to his guns, but I can see how and why it worked against him.
Click to expand...

It would only be rolling over if the event never happened. It happened, they brought out the tapes and other evidence which I'd bet included video of the controllers screen of that flight. Not wanting to confess a lie isn't anti authority, but does indicate rationalization. The lie to begin with is not in line with the "Good moral character" required for holding an ATP ticket. They want the truth about this stuff, not BS. They want to feel satisfied that you made an honest mistake and don't have personality traits that can threated hundreds of lives. Remember, he hold an ATP. A person who makes a mistake and deals with it in the proper manner is more likely to bring other errors into the open and seek help rather than compound the risk generated by covering it up. That's why they hold ATPs to the highest standard, and I think that is correct for them to do given the FAA's general mandate.
 
Henning said:
It would only be rolling over if the event never happened. It happened, they brought out the tapes and other evidence which I'd bet included video of the controllers screen of that flight.
Click to expand...

You were not there, the OP says otherwise, and I'm not inclined to call anyone a liar.

Henning said:
Not wanting to confess a lie isn't anti authority, but does indicate rationalization.
Click to expand...

Once again, unless the OP didn't do anything wrong, which is his claim, no rationalization is involved.

Henning said:
The lie to begin with is not in line with the "Good moral character" required for holding an ATP ticket. They want the truth about this stuff, not BS.
Click to expand...

So you're accusing this guy of lying because the FAA says so. Talk about worshipping at their altar.
 
steingar said:
So you're accusing this guy of lying because the FAA says so. Talk about worshiping at their altar.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it constitutes "worshiping at the alter." I don't think it's that extreme. It's more like a combination of a tendency to believe the government and being willing to pass judgment on others without full knowledge and . For better or worse, that's pretty normal unless you've had some exposure to the contrary.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, almost never. I suppose that if your brakes and throttle failed simultaneously in the runup area and your plane launched itself into the air, that might be an "inadvertent" violation.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
Actually, I don't think that would be a violation at all.
Click to expand...
It would be if that led to being in the air inside the SFRA without an assigned, discrete 4-digit code (the situation I was discussing).
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not sure it constitutes "worshiping at the alter." I don't think it's that extreme. It's more like a combination of a tendency to believe the government and being willing to pass judgment on others without full knowledge and . For better or worse, that's pretty normal unless you've had some exposure to the contrary.
Click to expand...

And it's "Altar". Unless, of course, you're referring to your spayed/neutered cat (which requires worship).
 
Ron Levy said:
The second-highest court in the land doesn't seem to think the matter is worth further judicial review.
As a matter of law, a pilot's dependence on his/her pilot certificate to make a living is not an issue when considering a suspension or revocation, and there are numerous cases on point, starting with Pastrana v. US, et al., 746 F 2d 1447 (1984).
Click to expand...

Ron...I cannot argue your points as they are law, but ya know what? That still does not make them RIGHT.
 
TMetzinger said:
And it's "Altar". Unless, of course, you're referring to your spayed/neutered cat (which requires worship).
Click to expand...

So a spayed or neutered cat is altered, and a spayed or neutered dog is fixed? Hmm... ;)
 
tdager said:
Ron...I cannot argue your points as they are law, but ya know what? That still does not make them RIGHT.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I ever said otherwise. For me, the only issue is educating people to the facts of aviating life in the 21st century so they can "avoid Imperial entanglements," nothing more. The problems develop when folks think that being morally right is an excuse for being legally wrong and thus avoiding the consequences of their violation of the law. The only way to change the law is to get the lawmakers to change it. AOPA and others did a great job of reducing the scope of the ADIZ to the current SFRA, and that's how this stuff changes. However, until it does, I believe violations of the DC SFRA will only make it harder for AOPA and the others to get those changes effected, and the best thing we can do for ourselves is to scrupulously adhere to the DC SFRA rules, which (to go back to the beginning) the documentary evidence presented to the ALJ (radar tapes, etc) says the plane in which David was instructing didn't do.
 
Last edited:
They did not bring out any tapes. All they had was testimony and plots on paper showing NO code (not 1200) and then assigned codes.


Henning said:
It would only be rolling over if the event never happened. It happened, they brought out the tapes and other evidence which I'd bet included video of the controllers screen of that flight. Not wanting to confess a lie isn't anti authority, but does indicate rationalization. The lie to begin with is not in line with the "Good moral character" required for holding an ATP ticket. They want the truth about this stuff, not BS. They want to feel satisfied that you made an honest mistake and don't have personality traits that can threated hundreds of lives. Remember, he hold an ATP. A person who makes a mistake and deals with it in the proper manner is more likely to bring other errors into the open and seek help rather than compound the risk generated by covering it up. That's why they hold ATPs to the highest standard, and I think that is correct for them to do given the FAA's general mandate.
Click to expand...
 
steingar said:
You were not there, the OP says otherwise, and I'm not inclined to call anyone a liar.



Once again, unless the OP didn't do anything wrong, which is his claim, no rationalization is involved.



So you're accusing this guy of lying because the FAA says so. Talk about worshipping at their altar.
Click to expand...

Just reading everything that's been written by the OP and the court record and forming my own conclusion. Yes, I think the OP is lying because his story doesn't make sense. Even if his story is correct though, it still means he screwed up by allowing this to happen. It was an instructional flight, it there something that states that a flight instructor should only instruct exactly what is included in that flights plan? He screwed up and he's still making excuses and whining how unfairly he's been treated. He's handled the following proceedings poorly and is blaming the advice of counsel which he chose to take. Everything is about him not making the errors and not taking responsibility for anything. It's not his fault, it's the student and lawyers fault and he has to suffer, woe upon him. He's the best pilot out there and has pictures of people to prove it..
 
Last edited:
David Moeslein said:
They did not bring out any tapes. All they had was testimony and plots on paper showing NO code (not 1200) and then assigned codes.
Click to expand...

Were you there? Thought not, and don't blame your lawyer, you chose to follow his advice, and no if he had given me that advice I would have immediately fired him, on the spot. I'd rather have no representation than bad representation, and I'm not sure I believe he gave you that advice considering how people have defended him as a good lawyer. I my gut is split on you didn't want to face it and the lawyer did with what you gave him to work with, or that a well respected lawyer is completely incompetent. Another possibility is that your lawyer thought you'd screw it up so bad that he would rather go in with nothing than with you. I could easily believe any of them myself, I don't care really about that, it's irrelevant. What bothers me about you is that you won't take responsibility for anything. YOU screwed up at every turn of the road, YOUR decisions. Your decision not to verify your long term student had everything correct was an error. If you didn't believe that you were PIC, why did you make the phone call? Everybody knows PIC makes the phone call. That was your error if you believed that your student was PIC.You retained counsel, that was your decision, you chose not to come to the proceedings, that was your error, you took bad advice, that was your error, these were choices you made that came to bad ends, yet they are all somebody elses fault! You're not particularly unique in that trait, I have seen it many times. If you want to move into the left seat though, you have to get past that, you have to be able to own your mistakes and responsibilities. Captain is all about having final responsibility for the entire crews errors, you own them all. You can take this event and learn what you need to learn from it, and what you need to have learned is to take responsibility. Had you stepped forth and taken responsibility you wouldn't be in the position you're in now. But you're still making excuses and arguments. Thing is, you have the time and the license to move into the left seat, but you don't yet have the right mindset for the responsibility. I see it offshore all the time with deckhands who just got their first license and mates who take their first command. The problem with it is that it gets people killed. In order to be placed in a position of responsibility, people want to be assured, rightly so, that you take responsibility. I haven't heard an honest acceptance of your errors. They all come conditioned that they were somebody elses fault. Then the whole "ego wall" thing you did in that other post, what the hell was that supposed to prove? If I'm infuriating you, good, because you're infuriating the hell out of me by not learning a damned thing from all this. Be a professional or get out and sell insurance before you kill people.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I don't believe I ever said otherwise. For me, the only issue is educating people to the facts of aviating life in the 21st century so they can "avoid Imperial entanglements," nothing more. The problems develop when folks think that being morally right is an excuse for being legally wrong and thus avoiding the consequences of their violation of the law. The only way to change the law is to get the lawmakers to change it. AOPA and others did a great job of reducing the scope of the ADIZ to the current SFRA, and that's how this stuff changes. However, until it does, I believe violations of the DC SFRA will only make it harder for AOPA and the others to get those changes effected, and the best thing we can do for ourselves is to scrupulously adhere to the DC SFRA rules, which (to go back to the beginning) the documentary evidence presented to the ALJ (radar tapes, etc) says the plane in which David was instructing didn't do.
Click to expand...


Ya know what though, again not arguing the "legality" of things, was not the country born because the yoke of the oppressive government was too much to bear? AOPA got tossed a little niblet to shut them up. You and I both know that the SFRA is window dressing and overburdensome to anyone that flies. Our bureaucrats listen to no one but big money, or simply run around on power trips.

Yet it seems that most have forgotten how we were formed and want to meekly go along with anything the government does or says all the while muttering "well it is the law, we need our congresscritter to change it".
 
tdager said:
Ya know what though, again not arguing the "legality" of things, was not the country born because the yoke of the oppressive government was too much to bear? AOPA got tossed a little niblet to shut them up. You and I both know that the SFRA is window dressing and overburdensome to anyone that flies. Our bureaucrats listen to no one but big money, or simply run around on power trips.

Yet it seems that most have forgotten how we were formed and want to meekly go along with anything the government does or says all the while muttering "well it is the law, we need our congresscritter to change it".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the SFRA in no way, shape or form qualifies for "The Yoke of Oppressive Government". It say's "we need to know who you are if you want to fly in this small area, so you have to follow these rules." They don't even say "you have to pay", just "you have to call". That is not oppression. I don't personally see a great value in the SFRA and think it was a reactionary move by scared people, but I also don't think it's an affront to liberty either.
 
gprellwitz said:
Thanks! I learned something, even in this thread! :)
Click to expand...

Me, too... though I'd prefer that you had to hold it down for 2 seconds (or, even 1, rather than just momentarily) to switch from an assigned code to 1200 in the first place. Too easy, as Ron describes, to "inadvertently" switch to a VFR squawk on the newer boxes. The legacy "4-knob" boxes have the advantage here, when it comes to protecting you from a violation for squawking the wrong code.
 
Last edited:
BTW, I believe there's a way to disable the VFR button on the GTX327/330 -- maybe a good idea when flying within 100nm of the DC SFRA.

Also, the DC SFRA is not the only SFRA -- there's one over the Grand Canyon, too, and I think its effect on operations is much greater than the DC SFRA.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, I believe there's a way to disable the VFR button on the GTX327/330 -- maybe a good idea when flying within 100nm of the DC SFRA.

Also, the DC SFRA is not the only SFRA -- there's one over the Grand Canyon, too, and I think its effect on operations is much greater than the DC SFRA.
Click to expand...

You bet, and it's been there a long time. People just deal with it.
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, I believe there's a way to disable the VFR button on the GTX327/330
Click to expand...

You are correct, but it appears to be an installer option (i.e., the radio shop needs to do it).

Manual: http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/GTX330Transponder_PilotsGuide.pdf

Also, it appears that the VFR button on the 330 is a true "toggle", not a press and hold, see page 5:

VFR: Sets the transponder code to the pre-programmed VFR code selected during installation configuration (this is set to 1200 at the factory). Pressing the VFR key again restores the previous identification code. If the VFR Key is pressed when disabled (dependent upon installation configuration) a VFR Key Disabled message appears to indicate that no operation took place.
Click to expand...

I also learned that there is a way, within 5 seconds of entering the code, to get back into edit mode (rather than re-entering the entire code) if you realize you got one of those last digits wrong:

You may press the CLR key up to five seconds after code entry is complete to return the cursor to the fourth digit.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Also, the DC SFRA is not the only SFRA -- there's one over the Grand Canyon, too, and I think its effect on operations is much greater than the DC SFRA.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? :dunno: Sure, you can only cross in specified areas, but at least you can cross - And you don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Also, it appears that the VFR button on the 330 is a true "toggle", not a press and hold
Click to expand...
That I knew, but what many folks don't is that if you accidentally hit the VFR button and shift to 1200, if you hit it again, it will return to the last entered code.

"1200? Not me -- box says I'm squawking 6237. Must be your equipment."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Why do you say that? :dunno: Sure, you can only cross in specified areas, but at least you can cross - And you don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so.
Click to expand...

Considering the Security Theater the eastern seaboard could be, and the populace voice way drowns out the voices of GA on this, the regulations that are in place are minor. Other countries don't even allow personal/private aviation in any form. The rules involved really are pretty minor. There are many who would have rather seen GA completely prohibited. Remember, just because an incoming GA aircraft crashing into the White Hous isn't going to do any direct damage, since the last time it happened, a Cherokee I believe, the White house has been fitted with Phalanx. DC is crowded, and those are big high energy bullets. If that system ever activates, people are going to die. We have to deal with peoples perceptions of danger by making them realize we are not a danger. If we flaunt and break the rules, or worse violate them out of stupidity, we won't fare well in the public opinion. Public opinion is what makes politicians act. They need to please their constituency or they'll be out of office. For any given politician, a large Ladies Auxillary of Optimists, Rotarys or Masonic Lodge in their district holds more sway than the AOPA and other GA interests combined.

BTW, most people have to go around the GC SFRA
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
Why do you say that? :dunno: Sure, you can only cross in specified areas, but at least you can cross - And you don't have to ask anyone's permission to do so.
Click to expand...
Compare the altitudes you have to cross at with the service ceilings of your average non-turbo light single.:nonod: Very limited options.
 
tdager said:
Ya know what though, again not arguing the "legality" of things, was not the country born because the yoke of the oppressive government was too much to bear? AOPA got tossed a little niblet to shut them up. You and I both know that the SFRA is window dressing and overburdensome to anyone that flies. Our bureaucrats listen to no one but big money, or simply run around on power trips.

Yet it seems that most have forgotten how we were formed and want to meekly go along with anything the government does or says all the while muttering "well it is the law, we need our congresscritter to change it".
Click to expand...
I think we have exactly the government the majority of citizens are OK (note I didn't say happy) with.

What's going from our society is a sense of the value of freedom, even when that freedom includes increased risks. We have a way to "fire" our government without firing a shot - which is pretty neat, I think. All that's required is enough motivated citizens going to the polls and voting against the incumbent in whatever race is running. I'm not aware of any civilized (meaning reliable electricity, health services, water, etc) place on earth with more freedom than the USA, even as I watch it erode. If there was an unclaimed place to form a new country, it might be an interesting experiment, but new nations pretty much require bloodshed to establish boundaries. Alaska is still the closest thing the US has to a frontier, and the liberty/security balance there reflects it.

Back on the topic - the DC SFRA is a pain, but it's not a real limit. The FRZ IS a limit - I want to land at DCA again! I'd like to see a change to the FRZ allowing vetted pilots to land aircraft below 12,500 pounds at KDCA without law enforcement on board or special screening. Then perhaps after an incident-free period that privilege could be extended to vetted pilots on larger airplanes under part 91.
 
Ron Levy said:
...what many folks don't is that if you accidentally hit the VFR button and shift to 1200, if you hit it again, it will return to the last entered code.

"1200? Not me -- box says I'm squawking 6237. Must be your equipment."
Click to expand...


Right; that's what I meant by "is a true toggle button". We're on the same page! ;-)
 
TMetzinger said:
Anyone who thinks that the FAA is going to stand up and say "This is stupid" to a mandate from DHS - well, I want some of what they're smoking/drinking. FAA is a MINOR player in the government, they're not even a cabinet agency. Today I learned how my client (which IS a cabinet agency) is having it's cybersecurity policies dictated and micromanaged by DHS. Don't get me wrong, some of the policies are good, but others aren't and there's no recourse. DHS has most of the law enforcement/security clout in the Government now. Remember how folks were worried once about creating one big LE Agency and folding DEA/FBI/ATF/USMS/IRS/INS/USCS and pretty much every other non-military law enforcement gun-toter into it? We've got most of that now in DHS, and the worriers were right.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. And there are still folks that trust folks in governement who dismiss the fears of what may become out of giant new government programs (and I'll stop there because there are about a dozen threads in Spin Zone about the proposed medical program).

We have truly put control of the country into the hands of DHS. More than most people realize.

TMetzinger said:
I think we have exactly the government the majority of citizens are OK (note I didn't say happy) with.

What's going from our society is a sense of the value of freedom, even when that freedom includes increased risks. We have a way to "fire" our government without firing a shot - which is pretty neat, I think. All that's required is enough motivated citizens going to the polls and voting against the incumbent in whatever race is running. I'm not aware of any civilized (meaning reliable electricity, health services, water, etc) place on earth with more freedom than the USA, even as I watch it erode. If there was an unclaimed place to form a new country, it might be an interesting experiment, but new nations pretty much require bloodshed to establish boundaries. Alaska is still the closest thing the US has to a frontier, and the liberty/security balance there reflects it.

Back on the topic - the DC SFRA is a pain, but it's not a real limit. The FRZ IS a limit - I want to land at DCA again! I'd like to see a change to the FRZ allowing vetted pilots to land aircraft below 12,500 pounds at KDCA without law enforcement on board or special screening. Then perhaps after an incident-free period that privilege could be extended to vetted pilots on larger airplanes under part 91.
Click to expand...

I heard today on the radio the usual bleating of sheeple about the new TSA birthdate and gender requirements ("if it makes us safer, I'm all for it"... "if it helps identify people, it's a good thing"). It'll save some time at the checkpoint for a few, but really increase the time and hassle for EVERYONE (and build a government database of travelers).

That said, I don't think we'll ever see DCA again.
 
Henning said:
BTW, most people have to go around the GC SFRA
Click to expand...

Oh? :dunno:

Ron Levy said:
Compare the altitudes you have to cross at with the service ceilings of your average non-turbo light single.:nonod: Very limited options.
Click to expand...

If you want to cross "wherever," sure, you need to be at 14,500 which is close to most NA light singles' service ceiling (and above that of the NA Cirri), but the corridor altitudes start at 10,500 which is quite attainable.

I guess maybe my opinion is different on this because I've done the Grand Canyon thing, and I didn't feel it was unnecessarily restrictive at all, and I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Not so with the SFRA/FRZ. :no:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I guess maybe my opinion is different on this because I've done the Grand Canyon thing, and I didn't feel it was unnecessarily restrictive at all, and I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Not so with the SFRA/FRZ. :no:
Click to expand...

I havent' done the GC, but think all the whining about the SFRA is a bit much.

As Henning said -- there's no cost, no extra steps, and no overly burdensome requirements -- especially IFR.

If I'm going into or near that area, I file. period.

Leaving can be a real pain as you sit waiting for a clearance, but transiting through or flying into is as burdensome as any IFR flight -- which is not much.

VFR -- you get a squawk code.

Uuuuuuhhhh... scary!:hairraise:
 
dmccormack said:
I havent' done the GC, but think all the whining about the SFRA is a bit much.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to understand why someone would think the GC SFRA was *more* of a pain than the DC SFRA. :dunno:

However, while I'm not "whining" the DC SFRA is totally unnecessary, whether it's easy or not. I really would have liked to have flown the old Potomac corridor. Hope I can make it to the Hudson before that gets closed too. :(
 
dmccormack said:
I havent' done the GC, but think all the whining about the SFRA is a bit much.

As Henning said -- there's no cost, no extra steps, and no overly burdensome requirements -- especially IFR.

If I'm going into or near that area, I file. period.

Leaving can be a real pain as you sit waiting for a clearance, but transiting through or flying into is as burdensome as any IFR flight -- which is not much.

VFR -- you get a squawk code.

Uuuuuuhhhh... scary!:hairraise:
Click to expand...

Compared to almost everywhere else in the USA, it's a pain. When I lived in NJ not so long ago, if you filed IFR to the other side of the ADIZ, as it was called then, and you would get a routing that took you around the ADIZ outside of the perimeter.
 
dmccormack said:
I havent' done the GC, but think all the whining about the SFRA is a bit much.

As Henning said -- there's no cost, no extra steps, and no overly burdensome requirements -- especially IFR.

If I'm going into or near that area, I file. period.

Leaving can be a real pain as you sit waiting for a clearance, but transiting through or flying into is as burdensome as any IFR flight -- which is not much.

VFR -- you get a squawk code.

Uuuuuuhhhh... scary!:hairraise:
Click to expand...

Friday afternoon there was an 8 minute wait to talk to LM (I filed by phone instead of DUATS as I wasn't sure how long I'd have to wait for the O2 tanks).

Last weekend, it was 20+ minutes to get the IFR release. Admittedly, I could have gone out VFR, but there was enough haze (an clouds at desired altitude) that IFR was the way to go.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Compared to almost everywhere else in the USA, it's a pain. When I lived in NJ not so long ago, if you filed IFR to the other side of the ADIZ, as it was called then, and you would get a routing that took you around the ADIZ outside of the perimeter.
Click to expand...
They took you all the way 'round the B-space even back before there was an ADIZ. That's an airspace/traffic flow issue, and always has been.
 
If the DC SFRA is so easy, why do people need a course to fly in or near it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top