FAA: 157 airspace violations since 9/11

[AJ]

Considering how restrictions pop up without warning, I'm not surpised:

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
and despite heightened security, 157 planes have violated airspace
over presidential residences, CNN has learned.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records show that in the year
since the terrorist attacks, planes have flown into off-limits
airspace near the White House seven times.

Over the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, the FAA says
there were 104 violations.

And over President Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas, FAA-listed
violations numbered 46.
The FAA issued a warning to pilots this summer after a weekend in
which three aircraft flew into prohibited airspace over Camp David
while the Bush family was there.

One of the violators was an ultralight aircraft that the Secret
Service spotted when it was directly overhead. Military pilots
couldn't track the small plane, which doesn't show up on radar, and it
got away.

In a recent address to airline pilots, Art Cummings, chief of the
FBI's National Joint Strategic Assessment and Warning Section,
cautioned, "We've seen terrorist organizations looking at everything
as small as ultralights to deliver weapons of mass destruction ...

"That's yet another vulnerability that we have to take a look at very
strongly," he said. "We have to fill that gap."

The Secret Service would not comment on the potential threat posed by
small aircraft.

Off-limits charts posted
The FAA in July for the first time began posting charts on its Web
site showing the off-limits airspace, so pilots could see on a map
where they cannot fly. (You can view the FAA charts of
flight-restricted areas at
http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/specialnotams/Special_Interest_NOTAMs_graphics_.htm)

Still, problems continued.

During Labor Day weekend, while Bush was at his Texas ranch, five
planes flew into the prohibited airspace. All were escorted down by
fighter jets.

Pilots who violate prohibited airspace can be fined or have their
licenses revoked or suspended. But the most common penalty is remedial
training, according to the FAA.

While some lawmakers have asked for tougher penalties, others,
including Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, say the FAA is sometimes
at fault for not giving pilots adequate or accurate information.

"FAA has to shoulder the responsibility," said Oberstar, who chaired
the House Aviation Subcommittee from 1989 through 1994, when
Republicans became the majority party.

"Pilots don't have accurate information," he said. "They don't have
consistent and recurrent training. And they ought to get that and the
FAA ought to provide it."

Tom Blank, the Transportation Security Administration's associate
undersecretary for security regulation and policy, said the new agency
is addressing the problem.

"Of course we want to see them (violations) come down. We're hard at
work trying to do that," he said. "We think we can make some progress
in the months ahead."

But Blank said measures, some of them not visible to the public, are
in place to ensure Bush's safety is not threatened.

"Suffice it to say that preparations are made to take the proper steps
to defend Washington and defend what's inside the other restricted
airspaces around the country," he said.

[Andrew Gideon]

AJ wrote:

> In a recent address to airline pilots, Art Cummings, chief of the
> FBI's National Joint Strategic Assessment and Warning Section,
> cautioned, "We've seen terrorist organizations looking at everything
> as small as ultralights to deliver weapons of mass destruction ...
>
> "That's yet another vulnerability that we have to take a look at very
> strongly," he said. "We have to fill that gap."

Just what can an ultralight lift, and how heavy are those "suitcase" bombs?

[Wouldn't the bomb appear on RADAR in this case?]

- Andrew

[Ron Natalie]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message online.com...
> AJ wrote:
>
> > In a recent address to airline pilots, Art Cummings, chief of the
> > FBI's National Joint Strategic Assessment and Warning Section,
> > cautioned, "We've seen terrorist organizations looking at everything
> > as small as ultralights to deliver weapons of mass destruction ...
> >
> > "That's yet another vulnerability that we have to take a look at very
> > strongly," he said. "We have to fill that gap."
>
> Just what can an ultralight lift, and how heavy are those "suitcase" bombs?
>

I think Bush's rhetoric on Iraq has completely dulled our sense of what a
"weapon of mass destruction" is. Unless that suitcase has a nuke in it,
it's not "mass" destruction. It might be enough to blow up W sitting in
his living room, but that doesn't make it WMD.

[Andrew Gideon]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> I think Bush's rhetoric on Iraq has completely dulled our sense of what a
> "weapon of mass destruction" is. Unless that suitcase has a nuke in it,
> it's not "mass" destruction. It might be enough to blow up W sitting in
> his living room, but that doesn't make it WMD.

Sorry...I wasn't clear.

Yes, I did mean precisely a suitcase with a nuclear device. Supposedly, the
old Soviet Union had these and Russia may have lost a few...again,
"supposedly". None of the sources (on either side!) appear overly
credible.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd19/19nukes.htm
http://www.miis.edu/offsite_press/Time Magazine Oct 29, 2001.htm

But these look pretty heavy, so I've doubts that an ultralight can carry
them.

- Andrew

[Jay Honeck]

> Considering how restrictions pop up without warning, I'm not surpised:

> WASHINGTON (CNN) --Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
> and despite heightened security, 157 planes have violated airspace
> over presidential residences, CNN has learned.

I know this isn't what many of you want to hear, but dang it, it's got to be
said: This sloppy aviating has GOT to stop.

Either WE, as pilots, figure this problem out, or THEY, as the government,
will "figure it out" for us. The Feds are not going to let these
violations continue forever -- if for no other reason than the general
public won't stand for it.

And THAT will mean an end to the freedom of the skies we have so long
enjoyed.

Note that these violations did NOT occur over the controversial "national
pop-up TFRs" we all know and hate. These happened over the President's
residences! It doesn't matter if it's a "pop-up" TFR -- call Flight Service
before every flight. If they tell you that there are NO TFRs along your
route of flight, and you get busted in one that *they* didn't know about,
I'll bet you the keys to the Mighty Grape you won't be violated.

Anyone who lives near the President's residences, and DOESN'T call flight
service before every flight, should have their certificate revoked for
stupidity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> If they tell you that there are NO TFRs along your
> route of flight, and you get busted in one that *they* didn't know about,
> I'll bet you the keys to the Mighty Grape you won't be violated.

Even if we assume this to be true (and I don't), we don't know that these
aren't being counted.

- Andrew

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:eTlJb.732811$Fm2.637066@attbi_s04
>
> Note that these violations did NOT occur over the controversial
> "national pop-up TFRs" we all know and hate. These happened over the
> President's residences!

Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for example,
is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice (i.e.,
become a "pop-up TFR"). The same goes for Crawford, TX. Just because it's
charted doesn't mean that's the size of the airspace on any particular day.

That in no way is meant to undermine your proposition regarding folks
knowingly flying in the vicinity of Washington, DC and Crawford, TX without
at least a call to FSS or a check of DUAT(S).

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for example,
> is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice

I know. It's a real, *known* problem.

The problem is, it ISN'T apparently "known" by as many pilots as we would
like to believe.

I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.

I fear we're heading for a huge problem with this issue... :-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:PNmJb.733077$Fm2.638775@attbi_s04...
> > Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for
example,
> > is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice
>
> I know. It's a real, *known* problem.
>
> The problem is, it ISN'T apparently "known" by as many pilots as we would
> like to believe.
>
> I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
> mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
> Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
> residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
> surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.
>
> I fear we're heading for a huge problem with this issue... :-(

Jay

It seems obvious to us but.......
Console yourself, these peoples vote count as much as yours, I wonder
whether they can tie their shoelaces by themselves too.

[Ron Natalie]

"John T" > wrote in message ws.com...

>
> Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for example,
> is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice (i.e.,
> become a "pop-up TFR").

At least now both the expanded and contracted boundaries are charted. It is out in
some featureless forrest and there's even a Victor airway running through it. Even before
it started getting ridiculous in size, I steered well clear of it (I used to go from Dulles
to FDK, MRB, and HGR quite regularly).

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:PNmJb.733077$Fm2.638775@attbi_s04...

> I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
> mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
> Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
> residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
> surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.
>
OK, Jay....I'll make you a deal. I'll dump you out between HGR and MRB and
you tell me where P40 is. No fair using the GPS.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> But these look pretty heavy, so I've doubts that an ultralight can carry
> them.

You wouldn't have to go much beyond an ultralight. A few years ago, the Smithsonian
was doing some work in the Pacific. They mounted a 250 pound Imax camera on a
Quicksilver GT500 aircraft. Worked ok for a bit, but the pilot lost control of it
at altitude while trying to make a photo run with a cameraman on board. Put that
suitcase nuke in the passenger's seat, it would probably work fine.

The GT500 is classified as an ultralight under the European rules and as a Sport
Airplane under U.S. rules.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Note that these violations did NOT occur over the controversial "national
> pop-up TFRs" we all know and hate. These happened over the President's
> residences!

No, they're the magical "expanding TFRs".

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> >
> > Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for
example,
> > is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice (i.e.,
> > become a "pop-up TFR").
>
> At least now both the expanded and contracted boundaries are charted. It
is out in
> some featureless forrest and there's even a Victor airway running through
it. Even before
> it started getting ridiculous in size, I steered well clear of it (I used
to go from Dulles
> to FDK, MRB, and HGR quite regularly).

And the right wing gave Clinton a rash of crap for putting concrete
abutments in front of the White House.

[Z Sten]

AJ wrote:
> Considering how restrictions pop up without warning, I'm not surpised:
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) --Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
> and despite heightened security, 157 planes have violated airspace
> over presidential residences, CNN has learned.
>
> Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records show that in the year
> since the terrorist attacks, planes have flown into off-limits
> airspace near the White House seven times.
>
> Over the presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland, the FAA says
> there were 104 violations.
>
> And over President Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas, FAA-listed
> violations numbered 46.
> The FAA issued a warning to pilots this summer after a weekend in
> which three aircraft flew into prohibited airspace over Camp David
> while the Bush family was there.
>
> One of the violators was an ultralight aircraft that the Secret
> Service spotted when it was directly overhead. Military pilots
> couldn't track the small plane, which doesn't show up on radar, and it
> got away.
>
> In a recent address to airline pilots, Art Cummings, chief of the
> FBI's National Joint Strategic Assessment and Warning Section,
> cautioned, "We've seen terrorist organizations looking at everything
> as small as ultralights to deliver weapons of mass destruction ...
>
> "That's yet another vulnerability that we have to take a look at very
> strongly," he said. "We have to fill that gap."
>
> The Secret Service would not comment on the potential threat posed by
> small aircraft.
>
> Off-limits charts posted
> The FAA in July for the first time began posting charts on its Web
> site showing the off-limits airspace, so pilots could see on a map
> where they cannot fly. (You can view the FAA charts of
> flight-restricted areas at
> http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/specialnotams/Special_Interest_NOTAMs_graphics_.htm)
>
> Still, problems continued.
>
> During Labor Day weekend, while Bush was at his Texas ranch, five
> planes flew into the prohibited airspace. All were escorted down by
> fighter jets.
>
> Pilots who violate prohibited airspace can be fined or have their
> licenses revoked or suspended. But the most common penalty is remedial
> training, according to the FAA.
>
> While some lawmakers have asked for tougher penalties, others,
> including Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, say the FAA is sometimes
> at fault for not giving pilots adequate or accurate information.
>
> "FAA has to shoulder the responsibility," said Oberstar, who chaired
> the House Aviation Subcommittee from 1989 through 1994, when
> Republicans became the majority party.
>
> "Pilots don't have accurate information," he said. "They don't have
> consistent and recurrent training. And they ought to get that and the
> FAA ought to provide it."
>
> Tom Blank, the Transportation Security Administration's associate
> undersecretary for security regulation and policy, said the new agency
> is addressing the problem.
>
> "Of course we want to see them (violations) come down. We're hard at
> work trying to do that," he said. "We think we can make some progress
> in the months ahead."
>
> But Blank said measures, some of them not visible to the public, are
> in place to ensure Bush's safety is not threatened.
>
> "Suffice it to say that preparations are made to take the proper steps
> to defend Washington and defend what's inside the other restricted
> airspaces around the country," he said.
Please do not get me wrong - I do not condone these airspace violations.
I do have my flame-proof pajamas on.
But...reports like this bother me because they are incomplete. So there
were 157 airspace violations in the year following 9/11. Please put that
number into perspective for me. How many violations were there PRIOR to
9/11. Without proper perspectives the media folks make pilots out to be
the "bad guys" for being to stupid. Also, how many of those airspace
violations were from pilots who had spotty or incorrect information from
pre-flight briefers? How many of those violations were the result of
pilots needing to make an emergency landing at the closest available
airfield? Are such incidents still considered airspace violations?

'Nuff said.

[Malcolm Teas]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<PNmJb.733077$Fm2.638775@attbi_s04>...
> > Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for example,
> > is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice
>
> I know. It's a real, *known* problem.
>
> The problem is, it ISN'T apparently "known" by as many pilots as we would
> like to believe.

There ARE cases where pilots from out of the area were not told of the
inflatable TFR over P-40, or even of the SFR area over DC. The "157"
number includes all violations since 9/11, including the early days
when FSS and ATC could be pretty confused sometimes themselves.

What I'd like to see is violations/month or something like that. And
violations per TFR that's constant vs the pop up or inflatable TFRs.
These would be more useful measures.

> I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
> mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
> Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
> residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
> surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.

The interesting thing is that 1) GA hasn't been in any publicly known
terrorist incident in North America, and 2) Commercial avaition has,
and 3) National airport is maybe all of 30 seconds flight time from
downtown DC.

Yet somehow GA gets all the attention and National's still open, but
only to commericial av. Even the guys at FSS think this is bogus and
that the ADIZ is at least partly window dressing.

> I fear we're heading for a huge problem with this issue... :-(

I do agree on that! GA is small and an easy political target.

-Malcolm Teas

[Jay Honeck]

> OK, Jay....I'll make you a deal. I'll dump you out between HGR and MRB
and
> you tell me where P40 is. No fair using the GPS.

Although I suspect I could figure it out with my VORs (assuming they still
work -- we haven't turned 'em on in a few months), why would it be "no fair"
using the best navigational tool in my plane?

Or are you implying that the 157 pilots who flew over the President's homes
didn't have access to GPS?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message news:3ff6048d$0$32330
> >
> OK, Jay....I'll make you a deal. I'll dump you out between HGR and MRB
and
> you tell me where P40 is. No fair using the GPS.


I would say that if you fly arount those areas, you should get., and use
GPS......or steer a
wide berth.

I agree with Jay. A few are going to screw it up for all of us, if no
changes are made.
--
Jim in NC

[Ash Wyllie]

Tom Sixkiller opined

>"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> "John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>>
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that even though airspace over Camp David (P40), for
>example,
>> > is charted and well known, it can be expanded with little notice (i.e.,
>> > become a "pop-up TFR").
>>
>> At least now both the expanded and contracted boundaries are charted. It
>is out in
>> some featureless forrest and there's even a Victor airway running through
>it. Even before
>> it started getting ridiculous in size, I steered well clear of it (I used
>to go from Dulles
>> to FDK, MRB, and HGR quite regularly).

>And the right wing gave Clinton a rash of crap for putting concrete
>abutments in front of the White House.

And the right wing is unhappy that Bush hasn't removed them.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Tom Fleischman]

In article >, Ron
Natalie > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:PNmJb.733077$Fm2.638775@attbi_s04...
>
> > I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
> > mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
> > Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
> > residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
> > surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.
> >
> OK, Jay....I'll make you a deal. I'll dump you out between HGR and MRB and
> you tell me where P40 is. No fair using the GPS.
>

Well that's not quite fair, Ron. Pilots are not "dumped out" into an
area. They fly into an area. If I was flying between HGR and MRB I'd
dial in the FDK 325 radial and remain west of it. P-40 is not hard to
avoid, even without GPS. There are a half dozen VOR's around it. This
should not be a hard thing to do for a competant pilot. If you are
flying NORDO you should be aware of landmarks in the area and give the
restricted area an extra wide berth. AOPA has been diligent about
posting the P-40 expansions and they are normally issued days before
they occur. I agree with Jay, there is no excuse for violating these
areas nowadays.

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, Ron
> Natalie > wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:PNmJb.733077$Fm2.638775@attbi_s04...
> >
> > > I can only shake my head in disbelief that 157 pilots could make such a
> > > mistake -- it makes us all look ridiculous. I mean, this isn't Mayor
> > > Daley's suburban Chicago house, for chrissakes, this is the PRESIDENT'S
> > > residence. Even us bumpkin pilots from Ioway know where THOSE are, and
> > > surely any pilot should be able to steer a wide berth around 'em.
> > >
> > OK, Jay....I'll make you a deal. I'll dump you out between HGR and MRB and
> > you tell me where P40 is. No fair using the GPS.
> >
>
> Well that's not quite fair, Ron. Pilots are not "dumped out" into an
> area. They fly into an area. If I was flying between HGR and MRB I'd
> dial in the FDK 325 radial and remain west of it. P-40 is not hard to
> avoid, even without GPS.

I didn't say there was an excuse. It IS charted and people should be aware
(as I say, I used to always give it a wide berth even before 9/11). However
Jay's bleatings make it sound like it's somehow prominately marked like the
White House. I was just pointing out that most people don't have a clue
where Camp David is. Nothing on the charts or the NOTAMS say "Hey,
this is where Camp David is." It's just another restricted area (of which there
are tons in the South East).

[Snowbird]

"Morgans" > wrote in message >...

> I would say that if you fly arount those areas, you should get., and use
> GPS......or steer a
> wide berth.

> I agree with Jay. A few are going to screw it up for all of us, if no
> changes are made.

I could be mistaken, but I think Ron's point was that the area
in question is a pure "paper boundry", where there are very
few natural landmarks to guide the pilot. And GPS isn't infalliable.
The expanded TFR isn't necessarily in the database as restricted
airspace. Its centroid may not be in there as a waypoint. And
while the savvy GPS-using pilot can add both, depending upon the
model of GPS it may not be easy to display the addition while
using the GPS to navigate. So if you're navigating by GPS, you
may need to figure out the boundry by some other means (visually
or by VORs).

I concur that changes need to be made, but I think some of the
needed changes involve charting and database changes, or changes
to the way TFRs are defined to make them easier to identify
visually. Unfortunately, even pilot interest groups hesitate to
lobby for such changes because they're afraid that charting,
database, and boundry changes would simply codify the "temporary"
TFRs and make them more likely to become permanent.

Cheers,
Sydney

[G.R. Patterson III]

Snowbird wrote:
>
> I could be mistaken, but I think Ron's point was that the area
> in question is a pure "paper boundry", where there are very
> few natural landmarks to guide the pilot. And GPS isn't infalliable.

Neither are the pilots of the interceptors, nor the ATC personel, but if *they*
make a mistake, it's still the GA pilot who gets charged. The last time this
came up, it became apparent that many, if not most, of the violations were not
the fault of a GA pilot.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[AJ]

Z Sten > wrote in message >...
> Please do not get me wrong - I do not condone these airspace violations.
> I do have my flame-proof pajamas on.
> But...reports like this bother me because they are incomplete. So there
> were 157 airspace violations in the year following 9/11. Please put that
> number into perspective for me. How many violations were there PRIOR to
> 9/11. Without proper perspectives the media folks make pilots out to be
> the "bad guys" for being to stupid. Also, how many of those airspace
> violations were from pilots who had spotty or incorrect information from
> pre-flight briefers? How many of those violations were the result of
> pilots needing to make an emergency landing at the closest available
> airfield? Are such incidents still considered airspace violations?

I can't find any. The Bush administration likes to stack the deck
unfairly when it comes to doling out information. Since "restricted
airspace" can pop up literally in a moments notice and disappear again
just as quickly, pilots are always behind the eight ball. Sometimes,
in my weaker moments, I wish that Clinton was back in office and he
would just say "The skies? Open that sucker up!!"

I usually feel better after a nap.

AJ

[Rob Perkins]

On 5 Jan 2004 05:06:39 -0800, (AJ) wrote:

>Sometimes,
>in my weaker moments, I wish that Clinton was back in office and he
>would just say "The skies? Open that sucker up!!"

I have no confidence that Clinton would have done that.

Rob

[Jay Honeck]

> I was just pointing out that most people don't have a clue
> where Camp David is. Nothing on the charts or the NOTAMS say "Hey,
> this is where Camp David is." It's just another restricted area (of
which there
> are tons in the South East).

Most people ain't pilots.

I would hope we're better than this, but apparently we're not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

AJ wrote:
>
> in my weaker moments, I wish that Clinton was back in office and he
> would just say "The skies? Open that sucker up!!"

I doubt very much that that would've happened. I still remember the nightmare
trying to get home the night Gore decided to attend a party at Bon Jovi's house
and they closed the GSP at rush hour with no warning. At least we're getting some
advance warning now.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."