Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore (MTN) a
few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me.

It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to
scramble fighters.

Flew into KentMorr and cut the corner exiting the airspace to the east
(i.e. started my turn south onto the airway before *completely* clearing
the ADIZ). "call us when you land".

What happened to the new warning lights?

buttman wrote:
> I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore (MTN) a
> few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me.
>

The're about to lase those guys, right ?

wrote:
> Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
> they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.
>
> Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:

>Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
>they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.
>
>Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:

>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/
>

Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article
means? :

"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement,
there is no situation under which the pilots would be given
“authorization” to shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots
some discretion. According to the officials Air Force pilots in these
cases are either ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this
case they were not..."

Antonio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/
>>
>
> Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
> :
>
> "...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
> is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
> shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
> According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
> ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."
>
> Antonio
>
>
>

I know it says "a scenario that would give pilots some discretion" but the
last sentence sounds to me like the pilots will not be given any discretion.

I'd interpret it to mean that it is not up to the pilots to determine
hostile intent.

If they do not receive an order to shoot, they will not shoot.
If they receive an order to shoot, they will shoot.

National Command Authority has the responsibility to make the call ... not
the guys/gals in the cockpits.

My $0.02 worth,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/
>>>
>>
>>Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
>>:
>>
>>"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
>>is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
>>shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
>>According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
>>ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."
>>
>>Antonio
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I know it says "a scenario that would give pilots some discretion" but the
> last sentence sounds to me like the pilots will not be given any discretion.
>
> I'd interpret it to mean that it is not up to the pilots to determine
> hostile intent.
>
> If they do not receive an order to shoot, they will not shoot.
> If they receive an order to shoot, they will shoot.
>
> National Command Authority has the responsibility to make the call ... not
> the guys/gals in the cockpits.
>
> My $0.02 worth,
>
> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ
>

Thank you. I am guessing your interpretation is correct though I am
still left wondering how the writer of this article ever made it to
prime time.

Antonio

> Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.
>

I hope. It's an EXTREMELY DUMB *******.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:38:39 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.
>>
>
>I hope. It's an EXTREMELY DUMB *******.


Probably not as dumb as a Fox News "Special Aviation Consultant" , who
I heard say that it's time we started "blowing these small planes out
of the sky", else "the terrorists" will get the idea that they too can
get within 3 miles of the Houses of Moronity.

National paranoia combined with national hysteria. Great theater.

The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA.
Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac?
Charlie

wrote:
> Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
> they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.
>
> Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

Charlie Derk wrote:
> The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA.
> Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac?

Phil Boyer popped out and made himself available to any press that was
willing to listen.

wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:38:39 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.
>>>
>>
>>I hope. It's an EXTREMELY DUMB *******.
>
>
>
> Probably not as dumb as a Fox News "Special Aviation Consultant" , who
> I heard say that it's time we started "blowing these small planes out
> of the sky", else "the terrorists" will get the idea that they too can
> get within 3 miles of the Houses of Moronity.
>
> National paranoia combined with national hysteria. Great theater.

You can laugh it up if you want. Although we know quite well that a
Cessna cannot lift enough explosive to do as much damage as a car, if
some exremist tries that, then we WILL see stupid pilots being shot.

I personally suspect the major reason cessnas like this NOT being shot
down is the obvious damage of falling debris, plus they would probally
figgure that even a plane loaded with explosives would do more damage
if shot than not. Then there is the possibility the rocket would miss
and hit the ground (bullets would be even worse - I think the rockets
can at least be programmed to explode only on the target, not the ground).
Fighter aircraft, bullets and rockets were never designed to do
low damage battle over the capitol.

My guess is they would follow the airplane with the idea that they
will shoot if it obviously is going to impact an important target.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Charlie Derk wrote:
>
>>The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA.
>> Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac?
>
>
> Phil Boyer popped out and made himself available to any press that was
> willing to listen.

You gotta love Phil, he is a great (and underappreciated) guy.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:01:37 -0700, Scott Moore
> wrote:

>I personally suspect the major reason cessnas like this NOT being shot
>down is the obvious damage of falling debris, plus they would probally
>figgure that even a plane loaded with explosives would do more damage
>if shot than not. Then there is the possibility the rocket would miss
>and hit the ground (bullets would be even worse - I think the rockets
>can at least be programmed to explode only on the target, not the ground).
>Fighter aircraft, bullets and rockets were never designed to do
>low damage battle over the capitol.


Then there is the obvious possibility that you wouls simply shoot two
innocent American citizens out of the sky. I'm guessing both these
ninnies voted for Bush, and it would have been a shame to incinerate
two guys who supported his presidency.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Charlie Derk wrote:
>> The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA.
>> Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac?
>
>Phil Boyer popped out and made himself available to any press that was
>willing to listen.

I bet he REALLY appreciated the way these two guys put him on the spot.

Maule Driver wrote:
> It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to
> scramble fighters.
>
> Flew into KentMorr and cut the corner exiting the airspace to the
east
> (i.e. started my turn south onto the airway before *completely*
clearing
> the ADIZ). "call us when you land".
>
> What happened to the new warning lights?
>
> buttman wrote:
> > I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore
(MTN) a
> > few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me.

Whats the problem? Did you start squawking 1200? there is no
requirement for you th exit the ADIZ unless of course your xponder
stopped working.

Maule Driver > wrote in news:ajsge.22624
:

> It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to
> scramble fighters.

No, that's easy enough to do in some areas. I've had fighters scrambled
on me. I was flying a helicopter in the Gulf of Mexico, inbound,
squawking our normal code, but the transponder had glitched internally,
and was not squawking the code set in the windows. I had no way of
knowing this, though, and the first I knew of it an F16 was trying to fly
formation on my Bell 206, doing all of 90 knots or so. This was 10 years
or so ago, and I wasn't violated, just had to call after I landed on an
offshore platform and explain that I had the right code in the
transponder. I then called and got a replacement helicopter sent out,
and the one I had been flying was taken in for a transponder replacement.

I also had a USN P3 AWACS plane come down and take a look at me, although
I hadn't penetrated the ADIZ, having only been a few miles offshore, and
I was just flying along the beach.

Sometimes the USAF reserve pilots just need some flight time, and they
might scramble when it's not really necessary, although that's probably
less likely nowadays.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:52:46 -0700, Antoñio
> wrote:

>Jay Beckman wrote:
>> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Peter Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/
>>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
>>>:
>>>
>>>"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
>>>is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
>>>shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
>>>According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
>>>ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."
>>>
>>>Antonio

Note the comma after the word "plane".

Paraphrasing:
Under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which
the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane. That
would be a scenario that would give the pilots some discretion.

Under strict rules of engagement the pilots are not given any
discretion. They *must* receive orders to shoot down the plane before
than may do so. They are not given the option of making that
decision. Authorization means they *may*, or may not at their
discretion.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Note the comma after the word "plane".
>
> Paraphrasing:
> Under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which
> the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane. That
> would be a scenario that would give the pilots some discretion.
>
> Under strict rules of engagement the pilots are not given any
> discretion. They *must* receive orders to shoot down the plane before
> than may do so. They are not given the option of making that
> decision. Authorization means they *may*, or may not at their
> discretion.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Now that you mention it Roger, reading it with a more noticeable pause gives
it a slightly different bent. Interesting.

Jay B