What can be done to keep this President in the White House? He's got
over 2,000 square miles of airspace restricted there. Believe me, no
one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pilots31aug31,1,1322239.story?coll=la-headlines-california

4 Planes Forced to Land in Breach of Airspace During Bush's Visit
The small-craft pilots are grounded at area airports during Rancho
Cucamonga appearance.

By Susannah Rosenblatt, Times Staff Writer

Fighter jets forced four small airplanes to land Monday after they
strayed into restricted airspace during President Bush's visit to
Rancho Cucamonga, federal officials said.

Secret Service agents and local law enforcement officials detained and
questioned at least three of the pilots, who were forced to land their
private aircraft at airports in Corona, El Monte, Hawthorne and Hemet,
said Lt. Jody Vazquez, spokeswoman for North American Aerospace
Defense Command, or NORAD.

No arrests were made, but the Federal Aviation Administration will
determine whether any of the pilots should face sanctions, Vazquez
said.

As the president delivered remarks on Medicare and immigration, 30
nautical miles around Ontario International Airport and Rancho
Cucamonga were off-limits to most planes except military, law
enforcement, commercial and special FAA-approved aircraft, said FAA
spokesman Donn Walker.

The undisclosed number of patrol F-16s shot two flares each across the
nose of two of the planes to attract the pilots' attention and force
them to land, said Vazquez and Chris Butler, resident agent in charge
for the Secret Service in Riverside.

The flares are "one way we can try to say, 'Hey, look, you are not
where you're supposed to be," said Vazquez, who added that several
other aircraft entered the restricted zone but left immediately after
the FAA contacted them.

The couple that landed at Corona Municipal Airport had been headed to
Southern California from Northern California and were unaware of the
flight advisory Monday, Butler said.

In another of the four incidents, Marcel Avery, 62, was flying his
four-seat Cessna 182 from Hawthorne to Scottsdale, Ariz., when an F-16
appeared at his left side and waggled its wing at him twice, he
said."I was very, very surprised to see an F-16 on my wing," said
Avery, a 30-year flying veteran who said he had carefully plotted his
course with his flight instructor to avoid the restricted area.

The Manhattan Beach resident was grounded about two hours; Hemet
police and an FBI agent made a copy of his pilot's license and
searched his plane."It was a bit confusing — I didn't really
understand and think I should be [grounded]," Avery said.

"On the other hand, you don't argue with the police, and you don't
argue with the FAA. They tell you to do something and you do it, or
you suffer dire consequences."
....

Larry Dighera wrote:
> What can be done to keep this President in the White House? He's got
> over 2,000 square miles of airspace restricted there. Believe me, no
> one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.
>

Expect a bunch of GA trained Saudis & Co. to remain in CA, a 9/11 cell
was from SD.

JG

On 31 Aug 2005 15:52:37 -0700, wrote in
. com>::

>
>Expect a bunch of GA trained Saudis & Co. to remain in CA, a 9/11 cell
>was from SD.

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to parse that comma-spliced sentence.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:49:20 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>
> Believe me, no
>one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.
>

Where is Los Angeles?

I saw a movie where it slid off into the Pacific Ocean.

Mike Weller

I know this guy and the instructor in question. In fact I was with the
instructor when the guy called afterwards to talk about the incident.
He has no business playing the role of a victim as it sounds in the
article. He was made aware of the TFR by the instructor (who did not
plot any course with him), signs all over the airport office, and most
likely flight service if he bothered to call.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> In another of the four incidents, Marcel Avery, 62, was flying his
> four-seat Cessna 182 from Hawthorne to Scottsdale, Ariz., when an F-16
> appeared at his left side and waggled its wing at him twice, he
> said."I was very, very surprised to see an F-16 on my wing," said
> Avery, a 30-year flying veteran who said he had carefully plotted his
> course with his flight instructor to avoid the restricted area.
>
> The Manhattan Beach resident was grounded about two hours; Hemet
> police and an FBI agent made a copy of his pilot's license and
> searched his plane."It was a bit confusing - I didn't really
> understand and think I should be [grounded]," Avery said.
>
> "On the other hand, you don't argue with the police, and you don't
> argue with the FAA. They tell you to do something and you do it, or
> you suffer dire consequences."
> ...

On 1 Sep 2005 13:51:21 -0700, "Yossarian" >
wrote in . com>::

>I know this guy and the instructor in question. In fact I was with the
>instructor when the guy called afterwards to talk about the incident.
>He has no business playing the role of a victim as it sounds in the
>article.

Given the fact that the F-16s had to fire flairs to get the pilot's
attention, I would have to agree with you. I'm wondering why he
didn't he tune to 121.5 MHz per intercept procedures. Did the CFI
brief those procedures?

Larry Dighera wrote:

> What can be done to keep this President in the White House?

A lot of us were asking the same thing about this time last year.

> He's got
> over 2,000 square miles of airspace restricted there. Believe me, no
> one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.

Well to be sure, we are talking about THIS President I believe, so we have a flawed premise fallacy
there. If we were afraid of lies we should be talking about the LAST President.

Mike Weller wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:

>>Believe me, no one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.
>
> Where is Los Angeles?
>
> I saw a movie where it slid off into the Pacific Ocean.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0116225

Another film about turning a major city into a prison:

Escape from New York (1981)
http://imdb.com/title/tt0082340

Can New Orleans be far behind?

He told the CFI that he tried 121.5 but got no response. How true that
is I have no idea. Instead he was able to contact Socal Approach who
said that they had been watching him for a while and that he needed to
land immediately.

He wasn't one of the ones that got flares. I think that would look
kinda cool personally (as long as it wasn't my license on the line ;)


Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2005 13:51:21 -0700, "Yossarian" >
> wrote in . com>::
>
> >I know this guy and the instructor in question. In fact I was with the
> >instructor when the guy called afterwards to talk about the incident.
> >He has no business playing the role of a victim as it sounds in the
> >article.
>
> Given the fact that the F-16s had to fire flairs to get the pilot's
> attention, I would have to agree with you. I'm wondering why he
> didn't he tune to 121.5 MHz per intercept procedures. Did the CFI
> brief those procedures?

"Jim Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> He's got
>> over 2,000 square miles of airspace restricted there. Believe me, no
>> one wants to hear his lies in Los Angeles.
>
> Well to be sure, we are talking about THIS President I believe, so we
> have a flawed premise fallacy there. If we were afraid of lies we
> should be talking about the LAST President.

Huh? Getting reelected made him a different person?

For sure, "the LAST President" -- that is, the one in office from 2000 to
2004 -- told plenty of lies. And unlike the previous one, his lies got tens
of thousands of people killed.

Pete

On 1 Sep 2005 22:00:29 -0700, "Yossarian" >
wrote in . com>::

>He told the CFI that he tried 121.5 but got no response.

If that's true, it points out another flaw in our government's
potentially lethal security procedures. If we allow these ill
conceived anti-terror measures to continue, they will result in our
government killing its citizens yet. Osoma's got this administration
chasing its tail in public. Very disappointing.

I wonder if it's possible to locate any ATC tapes containing his 121.5
contact attempt. Does the FAA routinely record voice activity on the
Guard frequency?

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:03:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>And unlike the previous one, his lies got tens of thousands of people killed.

According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal and
has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones business but his.

When you consider the fact, that baby Bush is enlisting the assistance
of the only president to be impeached to help him with the Katrina
disaster, it reveals the triviality of the offence the GOP pined on
Clinton. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been similarly welcome
given his criminal activities.

On 2005-09-01, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Given the fact that the F-16s had to fire flairs to get the pilot's
> attention, I would have to agree with you. I'm wondering why he
> didn't he tune to 121.5 MHz per intercept procedures. Did the CFI
> brief those procedures?

You know, last time I was in the US (just a couple of weeks ago) I did
quite a lot of cross country flying. I listened to 121.5. On our trip
from SLC to Idaho, I heard calls from Cowboy approach call two separate
aircraft that busted a charted and hot piece of restricted airspace.

Then on my way from Snyder, TX. to Houston, I passed a few miles to the
south of the massive TFR around Bush's ranch. I knew it was hot because
I had checked the NOTAMs just before departing Snyder. I heard two
pilots bust that one too, being called on 121.5.

None of these pilots actually replied or changed heading. I was half
tempted to key the mike and tell the military controller, "You know, the
kind of pilot who busts a huge charted restricted area is probably not
the kind of pilot who listens to 121.5"... there was just no excuse with
these two restricted areas, both were prominently charted and well
known.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:37:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>::

> "You know, the
>kind of pilot who busts a huge charted restricted area is probably not
>the kind of pilot who listens to 121.5"... there was just no excuse with
>these two restricted areas, both were prominently charted and well
>known.

Granted, many pilots fail to guard 121.5 MHz all the time, but when
you see an F-16 intercepting you, one would expect the intercepted
pilot to tune his radio, and establish communication.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
> http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
> entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. [...]

I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
> to distract from current events.
>
> Pete
>

I need the distraction - thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to
recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to
maintain sanity.

Michael

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:24:34 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

>I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
>Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
>with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
^^^^^^^^^
>conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
^^^^^^^^^

*hehe* ... nice words in the same sentence :-)

>point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?
>
>Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
>to distract from current events.
>
>Pete

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

...thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to maintain sanity.Gawd, I think I'm going to puke!