Latest US airspace innovations

[Spodman]

From AVWEB:

"U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill into the House last week that would impose onerous security procedures on general aviation. The bill (H.R. 5035) would require the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the screening of all passengers and property on each flight of every passenger aircraft in the U.S. -- including general aviation aircraft of all types. It would also prohibit any non-airline aircraft from flying within 1,500 feet of any structure or building and prohibit non-airline aircraft from flying over any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more. Land of the free, home of the brave. It would further require that pilots of all aircraft in U.S. airspace remain in contact with the FAA, presumably by radio, regardless of altitude or location."

Do we have the same bill here, or did the feral gummint not open it's latest orders from the US before they called the election?

[Wizofoz]

Well, if it's what's done in the states, it MUST be better....Just ask DICK!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Watch the septics go absolutely SPASTIC over that little gem.

[tower of terror]

That's it - ground to space - class C Yeh!!!!!
Lets cut all the crap.

[CaptainMidnight]

I read a while back (might have been in AW&ST) that the US FAA would early love to completely revise their airspace structure, in particular reduce the amount of class E, but they haven't been able to do it due to the powerful lobby their AOPA wields. Bit like the NRA apparently.

Says a lot for what is being implemented here :confused:

[druglord]

Why would they want to reduce Class E airspace? What and turn it into class G? Now that doesn't make sense.

[karrank]

There would not be much point in creating more G airspace, as US ATC ignore such distinctions and treat G as E anyway. I've read they want something that involves and controls (or excludes) VFR aircraft, y'know, a bit like our enroute C.

I understand such changes would require a new process for designating airspace, as it is done currently at a state bureaucratic level (with intense political input).

[apache]

Here's an idea....

Let's send Dick over to the US (permanently if need be) to introduce to the US the old AUSTRALIAN airspace system (ie the way it was prior to last november).
This way, we can then emulate the US AND have the safest airspace in the world.

and

We get rid of Dick!

[druglord]

class G airspace is very rare in the US it usually only goes from ground level up to 1200 or 700 ft AGL or higher in case of the rocky mountains where radar can't reach. So ATC has little or nothing to do with class G. Only to say radar services terminated squawk VFR and then IFR a/c are responsible for their own separation.

Also there is signifcant more liberty to fly where you want in the US cf to oz, and I\'m not sure unions like AOPA would allow any further restrictions to be imposed on VFR aircraft. So I don\'t envision anything like that making it to congress....unless they use the national security arguement somehow

[CaptainMidnight]

Druglord - karrank is correct - it is higher restrictions they (the FAA) would like. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[druglord]

oh i see what you're saying. I guess it'll be AOPA vs. the FAA then. Should be interesting to see.