Appropriate punishment for airspace violations?

[Stewart Kissel]

I just finished reading the news account of the light
plane pilot who buzzed the Statue of Liberty and interfered
with LaGuardia traffic. In our post Sept 11 era, with
enough of the public jittery about aircraft, this sort
of behavior is just putting nails in our coffin IMHO.
Any idea what sort of punishment gets meted out for
the boneheads who cannot read maps?

[Peter Seddon]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> I just finished reading the news account of the light
> plane pilot who buzzed the Statue of Liberty and interfered
> with LaGuardia traffic. In our post Sept 11 era, with
> enough of the public jittery about aircraft, this sort
> of behavior is just putting nails in our coffin IMHO.
> Any idea what sort of punishment gets meted out for
> the boneheads who cannot read maps?


Ans AGPS?

Peter

[Gerhard Wesp]

In article > you wrote:
> of behavior is just putting nails in our coffin IMHO.

I'm don't want to praise airspace violations, but the people who ``put
the nails in our coffin'' are those who invent new restrictions without
any sense. E.g., the Restr. areas around German nuclear power plants.
Or the new vigourous controls for GA passengers (also Germany). Or
the abolishment of cockpit visits.

Mostly, these are politicians who don't have the slightest idea of
aviation and whose sole thought is ``how can I maximize my votes at the
next elections''.

-Gerhard

[BAToulson]

In article >, Gerhard Wesp
> writes:

>
>I'm don't want to praise airspace violations, but the people who ``put
>the nails in our coffin'' are those who invent new restrictions without
>any sense. E.g., the Restr. areas around German nuclear power plants.
>Or the new vigourous controls for GA passengers (also Germany). Or
>the abolishment of cockpit visits.

And where the hell have been during the last two years, head in the sand??

Barney

UK And a frequent airline traveller who applauds the determination of
governments and others to prevent a repeat of 9.11. Unfortunately, you will
never know how many such actions are prevented, only those that succeed.

[Mike Borgelt]

On 31 Dec 2003 18:32:43 GMT, (BAToulson) wrote:

>In article >, Gerhard Wesp
> writes:
>
>>
>>I'm don't want to praise airspace violations, but the people who ``put
>>the nails in our coffin'' are those who invent new restrictions without
>>any sense. E.g., the Restr. areas around German nuclear power plants.
>>Or the new vigourous controls for GA passengers (also Germany). Or
>>the abolishment of cockpit visits.
>
>And where the hell have been during the last two years, head in the sand??
>
>Barney
>
>UK And a frequent airline traveller who applauds the determination of
>governments and others to prevent a repeat of 9.11. Unfortunately, you will
>never know how many such actions are prevented, only those that succeed.


You know, I don't think the 9/11 hijackers bothered to get a clearance
from Center to do what they did.

Pray tell, in what way is a restricted area around a nuke going to
deter a terrorist? Like a suicide pilot is going to worry about his
license being taken away because he violated a restricted area?

Get real.

Support real security measures, don't support measures that are merely
designed to give the appearance of security.

9/11 was caused by a hijacking reaction philosophy that said "give
the hijacker what he wants". This was quite rational given the history
of hijacking up to then.

It won't happen that way again unless the government reaction breeds
us all into sheep or other herbivorous grazing animals which airport
and airline security measures seem designed to do.

As someone said recently, the governments are treating people like a
herd, not a pack.

We now have reinforced cockpit doors which means that if the
terrorist(or just nutcase, deranged etc) is part of the flight crew he
can do what he wants after killing or incapacitating the rest of the
crew (most likely only one other) and the cabin crew and passengers
can do nothing about it. Airline pilots have committed suicide before
both on their own at home or in the aircraft taking all their
passengers with them.

I'd consider changing my job and lifestyle if I had to be a frequent
airline passenger so that that wouldn't be necessary.

Mike Borgelt

Airline passenger as infrequently as possible

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Mike Borgelt > wrote:

> 9/11 was caused by a hijacking reaction philosophy that said "give
> the hijacker what he wants". This was quite rational given the history
> of hijacking up to then.
>
> It won't happen that way again unless the government reaction breeds
> us all into sheep or other herbivorous grazing animals which airport
> and airline security measures seem designed to do.

Note that it didn't even happen that way by the 4th plane hijacked that
day.

The security changes since 11Sep01 are not only ineffective, they are
also unnecessary, since any future hijacker is going to be torn limb
from limb by the passengers. And they know it.

-- Bruce

[tango4]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> The security changes since 11Sep01 are not only ineffective, they are
> also unnecessary, since any future hijacker is going to be torn limb
> from limb by the passengers. And they know it.
>
> -- Bruce

I agree with Bruce. Whilst we are expending all the effort against 'plane
hijacking / terrorism I'll bet 5 to 10 that any intelligent terrorist is
plotting how to use trains, trucks, ships or other forms of WMD against soft
targets. Personally I think the risk of hijacking is less now than at any
time prior to this. Of course sensible authorities will be giving the media
profile to the aircraft side of things but actually focussing on identifying
the next avenue of attack!

Still back to gliding .....

Ian

[Ivan Kahn]

We all know - or should know - that airspace restrictions are nothing more
the public relationship ploys. It takes a small aircraft traveling at 120
MPH just 5 minutes to traverse 10 miles. A larger aricraft, that could
actually do some damage, traveling at say 300 MPH could cover the same
distance in just 2 minutes.

The only practical ones are those of larger diameter with constant airborne
partols, or surface to air missles. Even so, to decide and then to shoot
down an aircraft is less than 2 minutes is still not easy.

Ivan

[303pilot]

I think flight 93, the one that went down in a field in Pennsylvania, was a
lesson to the terrorists and should be a lesson to folks who love freedom
more than thoughtless knee jerk reactive regulation.

The lesson is this, give free individuals information and they will, for the
most part, do the right thing, up to and including sacrificing their lives
to protect others. The government didn't save us from any of the four
attempted attacks on 9-11. Our fellow citizens did save us from one of
them.

Commercial airliners won't be used again as missiles because we the
passengers won't allow it, not because the authorities make us undress and
unpack before we are allowed into the terminal.

All of the new procedures at airports are simply demonstrations of the axiom
that generals always plan for the last war. The next big terrorist attack
will be carried out with a truck bomb, or a computer, or a cargo jet, or a
shipping container, or a livestock disease, or a rail car, or a human
disease, or lone gunmen, or, or, or..... The commercial airline was taken
off the table as a weapon of terror by the men and women of flight 93.
Thank God for their heroism.

Oh, about the airspace violation--have the TSA & FAA call a press briefing
where the miscreant apologizes to the citizens of New York and to all of the
responsible private aviators around the world for damaging their reputation.
After his apology, he would surrender his certificate to the FAA.

Brent

"BAToulson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Gerhard Wesp
> > writes:
>
> >
> >I'm don't want to praise airspace violations, but the people who ``put
> >the nails in our coffin'' are those who invent new restrictions without
> >any sense. E.g., the Restr. areas around German nuclear power plants.
> >Or the new vigourous controls for GA passengers (also Germany). Or
> >the abolishment of cockpit visits.
>
> And where the hell have been during the last two years, head in the sand??
>
> Barney
>
> UK And a frequent airline traveller who applauds the determination of
> governments and others to prevent a repeat of 9.11. Unfortunately, you
will
> never know how many such actions are prevented, only those that succeed.

[Stewart Kissel]

As the originator of this thread, I was wondering how
it would propagate. My concern is not so much with
commercial aviation, but the publics' attitude towards
general aviation-particularly when they are scared/distressed
by the actions of light aircraft. If they see GA as
a threat, because of these incidents, it will make
it that much easier for the FAA to crack down. So
I whole-heartedly agree with dropping the hammer on
a violater. Interestingly enough the pilot whose actions
prompted my thread had done time for manslaughter,
apparently that crime does not keep one from the license.

>Oh, about the airspace violation--have the TSA & FAA
>call a press briefing
>where the miscreant apologizes to the citizens of New
>York and to all of the
>responsible private aviators around the world for damaging
>their reputation.
>After his apology, he would surrender his certificate
>to the FAA.
>
>Brent
>
>'

[Andreas Maurer]

On 30 Dec 2003 09:10:56 GMT, Gerhard Wesp >
wrote:


>I'm don't want to praise airspace violations, but the people who ``put
>the nails in our coffin'' are those who invent new restrictions without
>any sense. E.g., the Restr. areas around German nuclear power plants.
>Or the new vigourous controls for GA passengers (also Germany). Or
>the abolishment of cockpit visits.

Forget about the tiny German restriction around nuclear power plants.
In France the diameter of the restircted airsapce around a nuclear
power plant is 20 (!) kilometers.

What worries me a lot more than restricted airspace itself is the
extreme stupidity of the people to decide about such measures.

Bye
Andreas

[Mark James Boyd]

Hmmm...

In case of suspected attempts to hijack an airliner:

1. Light the "fasten seatbelt" sign, alert the cabin
that those passengers not wearing a seatbelt will be
killed in ten seconds.

2. Ten seconds later, depressurize the cabin. At
FL 300+, this should do nicely

3. Full left rudder, then full right rudder. Then stabilize
for a few seconds, then invert and repeat. Practice in the
simulator helps.

4. Roll upright, wait a minute, then send the copilot back
in the cabin with the portable oxygen. Using the fire axe,
chop hard at the neck of anyone not belted. Repeat as needed.
Stun guns that shoot projectile darts can also be used.

5. Alternately, continue to use exciting rudder until landing.

I'm guessing future terrorists will be more interested in
renting a large moving van and buying fertilizer...

[ADP]

Applying this procedure to any Airbus aircraft will result in loosing the
tail.
Since it is not a necessary piece of equipment when being hijacked, go for
it!

Allan


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:3ff75b83$1@darkstar...
>
> Hmmm...
>
> In case of suspected attempts to hijack an airliner:
>
> 1. Light the "fasten seatbelt" sign, alert the cabin
> that those passengers not wearing a seatbelt will be
> killed in ten seconds.
>
> 2. Ten seconds later, depressurize the cabin. At
> FL 300+, this should do nicely
>
> 3. Full left rudder, then full right rudder. Then stabilize
> for a few seconds, then invert and repeat. Practice in the
> simulator helps.
>
> 4. Roll upright, wait a minute, then send the copilot back
> in the cabin with the portable oxygen. Using the fire axe,
> chop hard at the neck of anyone not belted. Repeat as needed.
> Stun guns that shoot projectile darts can also be used.
>
> 5. Alternately, continue to use exciting rudder until landing.
>
> I'm guessing future terrorists will be more interested in
> renting a large moving van and buying fertilizer...

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:01:08 +0100, Asbjorn Hojmark
> wrote:

>> Forget about the tiny German restriction around nuclear power plants.
>> In France the diameter of the restircted airsapce around a nuclear
>> power plant is 20 (!) kilometers.
>
>It is?
>
>I know that during the Junior worlds, they often picked up
>thermals over the cooling towers.

Height restriction is 3.500 ft.
When my club was at vacation at Chauvigny this summer, the local
pilots were concerned that one might be tracked by radar if one enters
the restricted airspace around a nuclear power plant.

Bye
Andreas