In a column on ABCNews.com, expert aviation analyst John J. Nance gives a more measured response to the incident involving the two pilots who veered into restricted airspace twice above Washington DC.

In his column Nance asks the question how could a pilot just "stumble" into restricted airspace. His response...

It seems bizarre, but the truth is that from the air, downtown Washington, the White House, the Capitol building, and all our central governmental buildings seem pretty small.

After the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Washington's Reagan National Airport was closed to general aviation and airspace was within a 15Ömile radius around the Washington Monument was restricted. Since then, hundreds of small aircraft have wandered into the restricted airspace.

But how can a pilot tell if he or she has gotten too close? From a low altitude and 15 miles out, even an experienced pilot may not visually see the central D.C. area, even on a clear day. When there is a haze or cloudy conditions, it's all but impossible for a pilot using vision alone to remain more than 15� miles away. Pilots must instead rely on radio navigation, map reading or Global Positioning Satellite equipment.

And sometimes, because pilots are human and often make mistakes, even all that isn't enough.

These pilots were navigating via dead reckoning I presume, without the use of navigational aids or flight following.

Keep in mind they were not just on a joyride around DC either. They were headed from Pennsylvania to North Carolina to attend an air show. Tell me why any pilot would travel that distance without the use of GPS, flight following, or some other navigational aid that could have helped them circumvent this eggregious error in judgment.

Rather, Nance puts the onus on the back of the FAA and the "system." He ends his piece by saying, "In an ideal world, no private pilot would ever continue on a course to D.C. if there was any doubt whatsoever where that pilot was in relation to the no-fly circle around the city. But this isn't an ideal world, and the number of errors in the past few years leading to alerts shows graphically that the system itself is not sufficient. [Emphasis mine.]

While I have to bow to Nance's expertise on these matters, the action of these two pilots still seems inexcusable. Passing it off as innocent human error seems too kind a gesture. While I certainly don't wish to disparage fellow pilots, these guys should have known better. There is no excuse for improper flight planning. Therefore, I continue to hold to my previous conviction.