Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area Public Meeting
I attended the evening edition of the public meeting held today to hear comments from the community regarding FAA-2004-17005. For those not familiar with the goings on in the Washington, DC area, this is the proposed rule to make the DC ADIZ a permanent fixture. The public comment period was extended until February 6, 2006 so if you haven't already submitted your comment, you can do so by following the instructions on AOPA's web site. You can read my own comments here.
I was impressed and disappointed in the turnout for this meeting. On the one hand, there were a lot of pilots there. On the other, there were plenty of open seats and I recognized one face in the crowd (although I did recognize the name of one of the ad-hoc speakers). Maybe I need to get around the airport more and meet more pilots, but I was hoping to see more pilots I know.
There was a panel of government representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Department of Defense and US Secret Service. The scheduled speakers ranged from individual pilots to representatives of various aviation related organizations including Randall Burdette, Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation. There were some good stories related including ones from student pilots as well as airport managers. Charles Abell's account of the handling of "The Shaeffer Incident" was sadly comical - especially the part about carefully towing the suspected bomb-laden C150 to the hangar, passing scant yards from fuel storage tanks. There was a representative of the air traffic controllers there discussing how they oppose the ADIZ and how they were instructed not to provide radar services to VFR ADIZ flyers. [This is important because a few pilots mentioned how ATC isn't providing services in the ADIZ. Controllers should never have been giving services! We flew outside the Class B just fine before the ADIZ and we can still do just fine without talking to controllers, people. I don't want to hear from ATC if I'm VFR in the area. I'd much rather be paying attention to local CTAFs and watching the sky for traffic.]
I put my name on the list of ad-hoc speakers and brought my previously submitted comments just in case I was called (I wasn't), but I started drafting a different comment had they called me to speak.
Frankly, I was impressed by the range of agencies represented on the panel. For instance, the US Secret Service is known as perhaps the best trained security detail in the world and they are charged with the protection of the leaders of the free world. The Department of Defense (specifically an Air Force Colonel) has the world's most advanced aircraft flown by arguably the world's best trained pilots flying under the banner of "defending freedom".
Oh, the irony.
Benjamin Franklin's famous quote came to me again tonight during the meeting: Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
The Department of Homeland Security is quoted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as saying "Al-Qa'ida is the group most likely to use GA to attack targets in the US." You'll note that not one of The Nineteen involved in the 9/11 attacks were American citizens (you know, residents of the home of the free?). If the Border Patrol and Customs Service had done their jobs of protecting the borders of the US, 9/11 might have been deterred - and both of those agencies fall under the DHS now.
It's again sadly comical that these agencies won't disclose the details of how the ADIZ improves security of the national capital area, but they routinely tell the world where the President and Vice President will be staying (by announcing TFRs centered on their location).
Again, the irony drips.
Yes, it's good that these agencies are hearing the public's reaction to this proposal to strip liberties from the very citizens they claim to serve. I can only hope they actually listen to what was said.