Could training at a towered airport have prevented the ADIZ bust

[airman]

The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.

[Mike W.]

I understood one was an instructor, the other a student? Not the kind of
instructor I would want to learn from.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"airman" > wrote in message
. ..
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
> Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
> easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
> mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.
>
>

[George Patterson]

Mike W. wrote:
> I understood one was an instructor, the other a student?

No. One was a private pilot and the other a student.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[BTIZ]

I don't see how that would have helped with cross country navigation skills
around the DC ADIZ
BT

"airman" > wrote in message
. ..
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
> Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
> easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
> mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.
>

[Dave Stadt]

"airman" > wrote in message
. ..
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field.

That's absolute bull crap. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport as do
probably 100 or more airline and other professional pilots pilots. Are they
not adept at talking to ATC because they fly out of an uncontrolled airport?
That's got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. But then leave it to
CNN.

[Jack Allison]

airman wrote:
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field.

IMHO, this is a big assumption. Of course, coming from a CNN reporter,
it figures as such. Just because someone flies from a non-towered field
has nothing to do with how adept they are at radio skills. My
experience was learning at a non-towered field and I talk to ATC and go
in/out of towered airports regularly. Sure, some folks are lame on the
radio, whether talking to ATC or broadcasting blind on CTAF...but just
because they flew from a non-towered field means nothing.

I remember how difficult it was to train at a
> Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
> easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
> mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.

I'm sure that working from a towered field from the get-go makes you
more comfortable on the radio faster...but since one of these guys was a
private pilot, he should have the proper radio skills and be able to
operate in the vicinity of the ADIZ or he should tear up his ticket.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Friendly Skies]

> airman wrote:
> > The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys
took
> > off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept
with
> > ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at
a
> > Class D or C towered field.
>
> IMHO, this is a big assumption. Of course, coming from a CNN reporter,
> it figures as such.

O'Brian has stated before on the air that he's a pilot.

[George Patterson]

airman wrote:
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field.

All the talking in the world won't help when the radio's busted. O'Brien's full
of it.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[H.P.]

If anything will bust someone's ticket, it'll be that the student was
carrying a passenger. Or was the PPL the PIC?

I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the other
was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
unnecessary.

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qWzge.1544$R13.1430@trndny09...
> Mike W. wrote:
>> I understood one was an instructor, the other a student?
>
> No. One was a private pilot and the other a student.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

[Jay Beckman]

"airman" > wrote in message
. ..
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
> Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
> easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
> mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.
>

In light of the fact that this entire discussion regards accuracy in the
media, this is NOT what Miles O'Brien said.

In his report O'Brien was attempting to point out that if you depart from an
uncontrolled airfield and you fly in a direction which takes you toward
uncontrolled airspace, you can fly a long way without talking to anyone. He
was trying to contrast the type of flying you can do in Class G/E airspace
without having to actually try and explain the different classes of
airspace. By comparison, he characterized Class B as "airspace around the
countries biggest and busiest airports..." He did not suggest (IMO) in
anyway that flying from an uncontrolled airport makes you more dangerous or
less competent.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Dave Stadt]

"H.P." > wrote in message
...
> If anything will bust someone's ticket, it'll be that the student was
> carrying a passenger. Or was the PPL the PIC?

Well, yea.

> I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the other
> was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
> unnecessary.

It was very necessary. You know what they did. How were the law
enforcement people to know what these guys intentions were? They must
assume the worst until evidence proves otherwise.

[Mike W.]

I wonder if they knew the radio was out, or maybe they were distracted
BECAUSE it was out? Squawking 7600 might have helped.
"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:nCAge.1561$1f5.1151@trndny01...
> All the talking in the world won't help when the radio's busted. O'Brien's
full
> of it.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

[airman]

Agreed...that he did not imply they were more dangerous, but he did imply
incompetence to handle the ADIZ.


>He did not suggest (IMO) in anyway that flying from an uncontrolled airport
> >makes you more dangerous or less competent.
>

[Mike W.]

I don't think anyone has to imply incompetence.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"airman" > wrote in message
. ..
> Agreed...that he did not imply they were more dangerous, but he did imply
> incompetence to handle the ADIZ.
>
>

[Bucky]

H.P. wrote:
> I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the
other
> was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
> unnecessary.

This kind of treatment is routine. If this is the worst case of
unnecessary force used by law enforcement, then we're in really good
shape. (Remember the kidnapping of Elian by the feds, pointing an
assault rifle inches from the boy's face?)

[tony roberts]

Nobody but nobody believed that this Cessna 150 was a bigger threat than
all of the heavy trucks that were at that very moment driving through
the same no-fly area - and not even being checked to see if they were
loaded with explosives or even worse - spraying biological weapons -
but what a great opportunity to host an exercise, justify the cost, and
reassure the American people that their security forces are on the ball
and ahead of the game.

The two dumb schmucks who were arrested? A cheap price to pay.
I just hope that they get their plane back.

Propaganda - with a capital P!

Tony
--



In article >,
"airman" > wrote:

> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
> ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
> Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
> Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
> easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
> mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[G. Sylvester]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "airman" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
>>off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
>>ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
>>Class D or C towered field.
> That's absolute bull crap. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport as do
> probably 100 or more airline and other professional pilots pilots. Are they
> not adept at talking to ATC because they fly out of an uncontrolled airport?
> That's got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. But then leave it to
> CNN.

it isn't a bunch of crap. I've heard many many people here on usenet
asking about flying into the LA area, SFO area, etc. because the
last time they dealt with ATC was when they had to do 3 t/o and landings
at a controlled airport for their private. Of course they are not
comfortable talking to ATC especially if they don't have their
instrument. As for me, I fly out of SQL right underneath
the approach into SFO (pattern level is 800 and SFO ILS practically
over the pattern at 1800). As a student pilot on my long XC, I went
through SFO bravo and were talking to SFO Tower. No big deal. For
others with only have talked semi-casually on a CTAF it could be
completely new.

Gerald

[Ron Natalie]

airman wrote:
> The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
> off from an uncontrolled airfield, \

Smoketown is almost inside LNS's class D airspace. I've been into LNS
a dozen times for maintenance. I learned to fly at a similar towered
field. Learning class B procedures was a completely different thing.
The ADIZ is unlike anything else. It's not an air traffic concept.
ATC isn't tasked with facilitating or enforcing it, just issuing the
squawk codes. ATC doesn't even know if you've really filed an ADIZ
plan or not. If they don't get an IFR strip on you (which is how
ADIZ plans get to controllers), and you assert that you did file one,
they will (as time permits) manually allocate you a squawk code.
They were emphatic in local pilot meetings that they are not the
flight plan police.

Flying in the DC area with several P-areas, and a rather busy class B
has never been for the faint of heart. Situational awareness is
the key.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> That's absolute bull crap. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport as do
> probably 100 or more airline and other professional pilots pilots. Are they
> not adept at talking to ATC because they fly out of an uncontrolled airport?
> That's got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. But then leave it to
> CNN.

More alarming to me was his repeated emphasis and overuse of the term
"uncontrolled," followed by his emphasis on the fact that there are all
of these little airplanes flying around every day and no one knows what
they're doing or where they're going. While that's all true, a veteran
pilot could have used better discretion while describing these concepts
so as not to further alarm the public.


JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> That's absolute bull crap. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport as do
> probably 100 or more airline and other professional pilots pilots. Are they
> not adept at talking to ATC because they fly out of an uncontrolled airport?
> That's got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. But then leave it to
> CNN.

If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
the radio.



JKG

[Dave Stadt]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > That's absolute bull crap. I fly out of an uncontrolled airport as do
> > probably 100 or more airline and other professional pilots pilots. Are
they
> > not adept at talking to ATC because they fly out of an uncontrolled
airport?
> > That's got to be one of the dumbest statements ever. But then leave it
to
> > CNN.
>
> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
> the radio.
>
>
>
> JKG

That's simply not true.

[abripl]

> I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the
other
> was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
> unnecessary.

I don't know what it is about cuffing people that some cops are
addicted to. Its not just in this case but I saw it in nearly ordinary
automobile traffic cases. Maybe its a feeling of power or a public show
that they are doing something. I can see in case of physically
dangerous or armed individuals. Guess humans never really get past the
dark ages syndrome.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"abripl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the
> other
>> was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
>> unnecessary.
>
> I don't know what it is about cuffing people that some cops are
> addicted to. Its not just in this case but I saw it in nearly ordinary
> automobile traffic cases. Maybe its a feeling of power or a public show
> that they are doing something. I can see in case of physically
> dangerous or armed individuals. Guess humans never really get past the
> dark ages syndrome.
>

Well, let's think about this for a minute. You have people that have broken
the law or that you highly suspect have done so. You have a person or
persons there who is armed and has that weapon in a holster. The armed
person may need to use thier hands for something other than control the
suspect.

Oh, wait the suspect has hands to that just might be able to reach out and
grab the weapon. So, the officer says hey cool I have the neat things on my
belt that will allow me to do my job and at the same time make sure that the
suspect doesn't get my gun and shoot me with it.

[Kev]

I don't believe it has anything to do with being from an uncontrolled
field. Perhaps more from trying to fly an unfamilar route straight
through the ADIZ. Would love to see their planned route on their map.

But it brings up the thought that if they'd simply been using flight
following, the whole mess would've probably been avoided.

So one question is (because I don't know), is flight following easy to
get in that area?

Thanks!

[Jay Honeck]

> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
> the radio.

???

Mary and I fly from an uncontrolled airfield, are not instrument-rated, and
talk to ATC on nearly every flight.

And we're in Iowa -- supposedly the far corner of the galaxy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> All the talking in the world won't help when the radio's busted. O'Brien's
> full of it.

I hadn't heard this -- was their radio inop?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
Bucky > wrote:
>H.P. wrote:
>> I must say, the sight of one sitting on the ground cuffed while the
>other
>> was cuffed prone, flat on the runway made me sick and angry. It was
>> unnecessary.
>
>This kind of treatment is routine. If this is the worst case of
>unnecessary force used by law enforcement, then we're in really good
>shape. (Remember the kidnapping of Elian by the feds, pointing an
>assault rifle inches from the boy's face?)
>
I call bull**** on you. First for calling it "kidnapping". Second for
misrepresenting the placement of the rifle (and conveniently ignoring
the important (and easily seen) placement of the trigger finger).

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Jack Allison]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
> the radio.

What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-IA Student
Arrow N2104T

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[George Patterson]

abripl wrote:
>
> I don't know what it is about cuffing people that some cops are
> addicted to.

What it is is that entirely too many cops have been killedv or injured because
they didn't cuff someone.

> Its not just in this case but I saw it in nearly ordinary
> automobile traffic cases.

Yep. I remember a routine traffic stop in Knoxville back around 1970. The driver
shot the officer through the door and drove away. Made a few changes to the
rules right there.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I hadn't heard this -- was their radio inop?

I heard that on NPR yesterday, but I just saw a post tonight in which someone
said they called the fighters after they were intercepted.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

[G. Sylvester]

Jack Allison wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
>> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
>> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone
>> on the radio.
> What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?

I was not the original poster but the 'not talking to anyone' is not
speculation. Regularly there are posts about what to say when you
go near a Class B or even Class C airspace on these very same
newsgroups. I've read where people had to fly 2 hours to get to
the nearest controlled airport. Certainly they can talk to ATC
enroute but I'd bet many of these people are just not used to
it and scared away from talking to ATC. Granted most people do
talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
that rarely talk to ATC.

Gerald

[Dave Stadt]

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
> Jack Allison wrote:
> > Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> >> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> >> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone
> >> on the radio.
> > What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?
>
> I was not the original poster but the 'not talking to anyone' is not
> speculation. Regularly there are posts about what to say when you
> go near a Class B or even Class C airspace on these very same
> newsgroups. I've read where people had to fly 2 hours to get to
> the nearest controlled airport. Certainly they can talk to ATC
> enroute but I'd bet many of these people are just not used to
> it and scared away from talking to ATC. Granted most people do
> talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
> that rarely talk to ATC.
>
> Gerald

Of course there are some small number of exceptions, just like those that
have no idea what to do at an airport if there is not a controller available
to tell them what to do. Still, the original post was nonsense.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:hHVge.1396$Ld4.1339@trndny04...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>> I hadn't heard this -- was their radio inop?
>
> I heard that on NPR yesterday, but I just saw a post tonight in which
> someone said they called the fighters after they were intercepted.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

Thier radio was NOT inop. They played the tapes on NBC news last night.

[Dave Butler]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:hHVge.1396$Ld4.1339@trndny04...
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>I hadn't heard this -- was their radio inop?
>>
>>I heard that on NPR yesterday, but I just saw a post tonight in which
>>someone said they called the fighters after they were intercepted.
>
> Thier radio was NOT inop. They played the tapes on NBC news last night.

I didn't hear the tapes, but I read the CNN interview with the interceptor pilot
who said that they did communicate on 121.5.

<speculation>
We all know what the radios tend to be like in 40 year old C150s in the rental
fleet. Could be the radios were good enough to talk to an interceptor that's
dropping flares in front of you, but bad enough to discourage you from trying to
get enroute VFR advisories.
</speculation>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Dave Butler wrote:
> <speculation>
> We all know what the radios tend to be like in 40 year old C150s in the rental
> fleet. Could be the radios were good enough to talk to an interceptor that's
> dropping flares in front of you, but bad enough to discourage you from trying
> to get enroute VFR advisories.
> </speculation>


I can certainly buy that. I never flew a C-150 that didn't have crappy radios;
in fact, most had just one POS nav-com and a transponder.

One other thought: those who are feeling superior to these poor schmucks ought
to think back to when they were low time pilots. Have they never gotten lost?

Even flying through the Giron Corridor over Cuba, I've never been intercepted by
fighters. I expect that is outside the experience of most of the posters here
as well.

In this case, the private pilot needs to get a short suspension and/or mandated
dual. Nothing should happen to the student; he was effectively just the
passenger. And the government needs to rethink its procedures....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1115991200.117778@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:hHVge.1396$Ld4.1339@trndny04...
>>
>>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>I hadn't heard this -- was their radio inop?
>>>
>>>I heard that on NPR yesterday, but I just saw a post tonight in which
>>>someone said they called the fighters after they were intercepted.
>>
>> Thier radio was NOT inop. They played the tapes on NBC news last night.
>
> I didn't hear the tapes, but I read the CNN interview with the interceptor
> pilot who said that they did communicate on 121.5.
>
> <speculation>
> We all know what the radios tend to be like in 40 year old C150s in the
> rental fleet. Could be the radios were good enough to talk to an
> interceptor that's dropping flares in front of you, but bad enough to
> discourage you from trying to get enroute VFR advisories.
> </speculation>


The tapes I heard were ATC-to-Airborne Idiot and were quite clear.

[George Patterson]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
> One other thought: those who are feeling superior to these poor schmucks ought
> to think back to when they were low time pilots. Have they never gotten lost?

The pilot in command apparently is not low time.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Barrow]

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
> Jack Allison wrote:
> > Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> >
> >> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> >> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone
> >> on the radio.
> > What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?
>
> I was not the original poster but the 'not talking to anyone' is not
> speculation. Regularly there are posts about what to say when you
> go near a Class B or even Class C airspace on these very same
> newsgroups. I've read where people had to fly 2 hours to get to
> the nearest controlled airport. Certainly they can talk to ATC
> enroute but I'd bet many of these people are just not used to
> it and scared away from talking to ATC. Granted most people do
> talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
> that rarely talk to ATC.
>

I can (and do) regularly fly from Montrose to Rapid City and don't have to
talk to anyone but myself until I land.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:bHUge.6287$ix3.2594@trndny07...
>
> What it is is that entirely too many cops have been killedv or injured
because
> they didn't cuff someone.
>
> > Its not just in this case but I saw it in nearly ordinary
> > automobile traffic cases.
>
> Yep. I remember a routine traffic stop in Knoxville back around 1970. The
driver
> shot the officer through the door and drove away. Made a few changes to
the
> rules right there.

It doesn't sound like a case of not cuffing him; more like the bad guy was
still in his car.

[George Patterson]

Kev wrote:
>
> So one question is (because I don't know), is flight following easy to
> get in that area?

Yep. It's real easy to have your flight followed by an F-16. :-(

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:id5he.101$n95.47@trndny08...
> Kev wrote:
> >
> > So one question is (because I don't know), is flight following easy to
> > get in that area?
>
> Yep. It's real easy to have your flight followed by an F-16. :-(
>
Would an A2A missile be able to lock on the exhaust of a C150?

[[email protected]]

George Patterson wrote:
> abripl wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what it is about cuffing people that some cops are
> > addicted to.
>
> What it is is that entirely too many cops have been killedv or
injured because
> they didn't cuff someone.
>
> > Its not just in this case but I saw it in nearly ordinary
> > automobile traffic cases.
>
> Yep. I remember a routine traffic stop in Knoxville back around 1970.
The driver
> shot the officer through the door and drove away. Made a few changes
to the
> rules right there.

Dittos. Can't remember how many times I've read in the paper about a
cop getting shot at on a "routine traffic stop." Sure, 9999 out of
10000 it's no big deal, but when guessing wrong = dead cop, I give them
the benefit of the doubt.

Which doesn't mean that a lot of them aren't often Barney Fife
breathing-their-own-exhaust jackasses. Personally I live in a lage city
and would take big city cops over the boonie guys any day. And I grew
up in the boonies so I know that of which I speak.

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

G. Sylvester wrote:
> Granted most people do
> talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
> that rarely talk to ATC.

Fly 20 miles from Smoketown in any direction and you have your choice
of B, C, or D airspace to work with. The fact that learning to operate
in controlled airspace wouldn't be hard doesn't by any means imply that
the pilot isn't a doorknob. From charts I saw it looked like they were
flying a rhumb line that cut right through DC. I'd have the pilot
tested for early-onset Alzheimer's.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> It doesn't sound like a case of not cuffing him; more like the bad guy was
> still in his car.

True. So? Incidents like that got the rules for engagement changed.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Would an A2A missile be able to lock on the exhaust of a C150?

I would lay heavy odds that they're not using heat-seekers in the ADIZ. Too big
a chance that it would lock into a turbine coming into Dulles or Reagan. Almost
certainly they're armed with missiles that use a visual lock on the target.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[G. Sylvester]

wrote:
> G. Sylvester wrote:
>
>>Granted most people do
>>talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
>>that rarely talk to ATC.
> Fly 20 miles from Smoketown in any direction and you have your choice
> of B, C, or D airspace to work with.

I wasn't specifically talking about Smoketown, just giving the
other side of the story. I just looked and you're right, it's about
50nm from BWI and PHL. Even in a blazing fast C150 that would
take all of 30 minutes to be on the airport. I'm wondering how
did these guys not bust all the other airspace yet practically
flew over the White House.

> From charts I saw it looked like they were
> flying a rhumb line that cut right through DC. I'd have the pilot
> tested for early-onset Alzheimer's.

No kidding.

My friend's dad is a 20000 pilot for a major. he owns a C310. He
once said he's amazed at how he can take off from his airport northwest
of ORD and fly 2+ hours without ever talking to anyone. I'm sure others
actually do it.

Gerald

[Dave Stadt]

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote:
> > G. Sylvester wrote:
> >
> >>Granted most people do
> >>talk to ATC but it is very likely there are those out there
> >>that rarely talk to ATC.
> > Fly 20 miles from Smoketown in any direction and you have your choice
> > of B, C, or D airspace to work with.
>
> I wasn't specifically talking about Smoketown, just giving the
> other side of the story. I just looked and you're right, it's about
> 50nm from BWI and PHL. Even in a blazing fast C150 that would
> take all of 30 minutes to be on the airport. I'm wondering how
> did these guys not bust all the other airspace yet practically
> flew over the White House.
>
> > From charts I saw it looked like they were
> > flying a rhumb line that cut right through DC. I'd have the pilot
> > tested for early-onset Alzheimer's.
>
> No kidding.
>
> My friend's dad is a 20000 pilot for a major. he owns a C310. He
> once said he's amazed at how he can take off from his airport northwest
> of ORD and fly 2+ hours without ever talking to anyone. I'm sure others
> actually do it.
>
> Gerald

Why does he find that amazing? You can fly coast to coast and never talk to
ATC or you can talk to ATC for the entire trip. Whatever floats your boat.

[George Patterson]

G. Sylvester wrote:
>
> My friend's dad is a 20000 pilot for a major. he owns a C310. He
> once said he's amazed at how he can take off from his airport northwest
> of ORD and fly 2+ hours without ever talking to anyone. I'm sure others
> actually do it.

I don't know why he finds that amazing. I've made the trip from New Jersey to
Knoxville, TN several times without speaking to any controllers except those at
Knoxville. That's over 600 miles each way. The only other radio calls I made
were the usual ones ("three miles out", "entering downwind", etc.) at my
untowered fuel stop. When I flew down to Fort Myers, I talked to Orlando on the
way down. On the way back, I didn't bother -- just went under it. Many other
trips -- same procedure.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:C9che.42$Vu6.25@trndny03...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't sound like a case of not cuffing him; more like the bad guy
was
> > still in his car.
>
> True. So? Incidents like that got the rules for engagement changed.

As I recall from your original, this occured some 15 years ago; current
procedures for police making traffic stops have been in place since the late
70's to early 80's depending on the jurisdiction.

The traffic stop is still the second most common killing ground for police.
Being shot through the door while approaching the car is the #1 occurance.

Cuffing bad guys when placed in the car AFTER ARREST has been standard
procedure for decades, and cages around the back seats have been normal
equipment since then.

So? So how did the incident you bring up change the rules of engagement.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> As I recall from your original, this occured some 15 years ago;

You do not recall correctly. This occurred about 35 years ago.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[G. Sylvester]

George Patterson wrote:
> G. Sylvester wrote:
> I don't know why he finds that amazing. I've made the trip from New
> Jersey to Knoxville, TN several times without speaking to any
> controllers except those at Knoxville. That's over 600 miles each way.
> The only other radio calls I made were the usual ones ("three miles
> out", "entering downwind", etc.) at my untowered fuel stop. When I flew
> down to Fort Myers, I talked to Orlando on the way down. On the way
> back, I didn't bother -- just went under it. Many other trips -- same
> procedure.

I said amazing. I did not say 'surprising.' Of course he knows it's
not abnormal. Just that after talking to ATC for a thousand or whatever
number of hours per year, he finds it amazing that he can go up flying
and never talk to anyone. He's so used to it, it is just amazing that
he is not required to. It's not like he was blown away.

So interesting that people are saying "I can fly 600nm and never talk to
anyone." Many people said that how can there be people who don't know
how to talk to ATC. Well there's your answer. You don't have to and
some choose not to so they lose their skills.

Gerald

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jack Allison > wrote:
> Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> > If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> > there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
> > the radio.
>
> What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?

Observation. I live in an area surrounding a large Class B airport, and
there are plenty of pilots who rarely, if ever, use the radio at
non-towered airports. These same pilots don't venture near towered
airports or the Class B because they don't want to talk on the radio.
They also typically don't venture out if the wind is stronger than
"calm" and/or if there are clouds in the sky.

I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
on the radio. Many of the flight schools at non-towered airports around
here have dried up, leaving the mega-schools at the larger towered
airports for flight training.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <r6Oge.76216$WI3.72033@attbi_s71>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> Mary and I fly from an uncontrolled airfield, are not instrument-rated, and
> talk to ATC on nearly every flight.
>
> And we're in Iowa -- supposedly the far corner of the galaxy.

And you're also fairly "new" pilots. When I started training 10 years
ago, I had a young instructor who was comfortable on the radio, so I
became comfortable on the radio. I was taught to use flight following
on every flight, and was comfortable listening and talking from day 1.

I don't notice the problem so much from younger folks who have been
trained by younger folks, but I do notice it quite a bit in the folks
who have been flying for 30 or 40 years, are not instrument rated, and
only go out when the sun shines. Not sure whether the problem is
comfort level or attitude, but if that were me, I wouldn't be flying
around busy controlled airspace with an ADIZ overlay if I wasn't
comfortable at least LISTENING to the right frequencies.



JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Dave Stadt" > wrote:
> > If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
> > there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
> > the radio.
> >
> >
> >
> > JKG
>
> That's simply not true.

It simply is true, in my experience. The fact is that if you fly from a
non-towered airport in VFR conditions, it is not a requirement that you
talk to anyone. Many folks do just that.



JKG

[George Patterson]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
> towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
> on the radio.

I would say they talk more even outside of aviation. Kids these days can't seem
to do without conversation for more than a few minutes -- seems like they always
have a cell phone stuck in their ear. Seems to me that the older the person on a
phone in a public place is, the more likely it is that the conversation is
necessary.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:wcche.44$Vu6.8@trndny03...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> Would an A2A missile be able to lock on the exhaust of a C150?
>
> I would lay heavy odds that they're not using heat-seekers in the ADIZ.
> Too big a chance that it would lock into a turbine coming into Dulles or
> Reagan. Almost certainly they're armed with missiles that use a visual
> lock on the target.
>
> George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't
> got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

AFAIK, there are no A2A missles in the US inventory that are targeted
visually.

You have heat seakers (AIM9x), passive radar (AIM7) and active radar missles
(AMRAAM.) Maverick missles have a TV-guided version but they are used
against armor.

One very short squeeze of the trigger would fire enough 20mm to bring down
just about any light single.

Which brings up this question: Why did they need the F16s at all? Aren't
the Blackhawks armed with 20mm guns mounted in the doors? Did they not
know the type of aircraft until the F16s arrived on station or did the helo
get a viz ID first? If so, why not call off the F16s? The Blackhawk
probably could have blown the C150 down with rotor wash on it's own.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Bucky]

Michael Houghton wrote:
> I call bull**** on you.
> First for calling it "kidnapping".

OK, "kidnapping" was overstated. Change it to "seized by force and
intimidation".

> Second for
> misrepresenting the placement of the rifle

What part of "pointing an assault rifle inches from the boy's face" was
misrepresented?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/elian/elian_a.jpg

> (and conveniently ignoring
> the important (and easily seen) placement of the trigger finger).

Oh that's right, with the barrel of an assault rifle pointed inches
from his face, Elian was able to remain calm and unfrightened because
he noticed that the agent's trigger finger was one inch away from the
trigger. It was nice to know this fact afterwards, but during the
situation it was irrelevant where the trigger finger was or whether the
rifle was even loaded.

Well, you only addressed my example. So does that mean you concur with
the first part of my statement? "This kind of treatment is routine. If
this is the worst case of unnecessary force used by law enforcement,
then we're in really good shape."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bucky" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Michael Houghton wrote:
>> I call bull**** on you.
>> First for calling it "kidnapping".
>
> OK, "kidnapping" was overstated. Change it to "seized by force and
> intimidation".
>
>> Second for
>> misrepresenting the placement of the rifle
>
> What part of "pointing an assault rifle inches from the boy's face" was
> misrepresented?
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/elian/elian_a.jpg
>

I'd say it was more at the chest of kid. But to take up for the agents who
went in. They didn't know who or what was in that closet.

[Maule Driver]

It's pretty self-evident that a significant number of pilots avoid 2 way
radio use and the airports that require it. Anyone dismissing this
theory out of hand has their head in a hole.

I was guilty of it for 2 years. After flying gliders for 15+ years
where we use the radio constantly but almost never with ATC, I
re-entered the ASEL community. I avoided ATC whenever possible and as
others have pointed out, you can fly almost anywhere without talking to
anyone. And I live under the outer edge of a Class C. No problem with
CTAF, just no ATC. I came to understand that my behavior was stupid.

As others have stated, an instrument rating is excellent radio training.

A good way to shock under 40 pilots is to tell them that "no one" used
headsets back in the day. How stupid was that!

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
> In article >,
> Jack Allison > wrote:
>
>>Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
>>>there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
>>>the radio.
>>
>>What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?
>
>
> Observation. I live in an area surrounding a large Class B airport, and
> there are plenty of pilots who rarely, if ever, use the radio at
> non-towered airports. These same pilots don't venture near towered
> airports or the Class B because they don't want to talk on the radio.
> They also typically don't venture out if the wind is stronger than
> "calm" and/or if there are clouds in the sky.
>
> I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
> towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
> on the radio. Many of the flight schools at non-towered airports around
> here have dried up, leaving the mega-schools at the larger towered
> airports for flight training.
>
>
>
> JKG

[Ted]

Seems to me that he needed only a $140 gps with a proximity waypoint around
the Washington monument to keep him out of trouble.

Jay Honeck wrote in message ...
>> If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
>> there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
>> the radio.
>
>???
>
>Mary and I fly from an uncontrolled airfield, are not instrument-rated, and
>talk to ATC on nearly every flight.
>
>And we're in Iowa -- supposedly the far corner of the galaxy.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jose]

> A good way to shock under 40 pilots is to tell them that "no one" used headsets back in the day. How stupid was that!

The aircraft available for rent did not have intercoms. The pilots did
not have much input into the matter.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> Which brings up this question: Why did they need the F16s at all? Aren't
> the Blackhawks armed with 20mm guns mounted in the doors? Did they not
> know the type of aircraft until the F16s arrived on station or did the helo
> get a viz ID first? If so, why not call off the F16s? The Blackhawk
> probably could have blown the C150 down with rotor wash on it's own.

What if the intruder is a Citation? Blackhawks can't catch one.

Of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere, a Citation would've either hit or
been out of the ADIZ by the time the F-16s left the ground, but that's probably
the argument for using them.

Maybe if they kept the F-16 pilots at cockpit readiness, like they did Spitfire
pilots during the BFB, they might have a chance. Anybody want that job?

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:eqcie.5517$n95.3587@trndny08...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>> Which brings up this question: Why did they need the F16s at all?
>> Aren't the Blackhawks armed with 20mm guns mounted in the doors? Did
>> they not know the type of aircraft until the F16s arrived on station or
>> did the helo get a viz ID first? If so, why not call off the F16s? The
>> Blackhawk probably could have blown the C150 down with rotor wash on it's
>> own.
>
> What if the intruder is a Citation? Blackhawks can't catch one.
>

George,

I realize that a BlackHawk couldn't catch a bizjet but the plane in this
specific case was a C150. Hence my additonal questions regarding at what
point was the type confirmed?

If the helo got a positive ID, then did they really need the Falcons? Were
the Falcons airborn and enroute before an ID was made?

Personally, a 20mm minigun pointed my way from a BlackHawk would get my
attention ASAP.

> Of course, as has been mentioned elsewhere, a Citation would've either hit
> or been out of the ADIZ by the time the F-16s left the ground, but that's
> probably the argument for using them.
>
> Maybe if they kept the F-16 pilots at cockpit readiness, like they did
> Spitfire pilots during the BFB, they might have a chance. Anybody want
> that job?

I do not know if the pilot I saw interviewed was one of the interceptors or
if he was just "Spokes Brass", but he used the term "Hot Cocked" in regard
to the F16s assigned to ADIZ duty.

A little Google-ing yields a defintion of "Hot Cocked" as being an aircraft
that is fueled and armed, has it's INS aligned and then is not moved unless
launced. There were differing opinions but from what I could glean, a "Hot
Cocked" fighter can be airborne in as little as 30 seconds after startup +
gauge stabilization if they are getting radar steers (GC or AWACS) or are
GPS equipped, to about 2 minutes if they will have to rely soley on INS
guidence.

IIRC, the F15s at Bitburg Germany were maintained in this state of readiness
in their hardstands in case "Ivan" came calling via the Fulda Gap back in
the "bad old days."

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[George Patterson]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> I realize that a BlackHawk couldn't catch a bizjet but the plane in this
> specific case was a C150. Hence my additonal questions regarding at what
> point was the type confirmed?

I took your post to be a suggestion that we get rid of the fighters completely.
I now see that wasn't what you were suggesting.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Jay Beckman]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:FPeie.2815$BF5.1027@trndny06...
> Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>> I realize that a BlackHawk couldn't catch a bizjet but the plane in this
>> specific case was a C150. Hence my additonal questions regarding at what
>> point was the type confirmed?
>
> I took your post to be a suggestion that we get rid of the fighters
> completely. I now see that wasn't what you were suggesting.
>
> George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't
> got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

Ah...

No worries...

BTW, I work the NASCAR circuit for FOX and NBC so I'm with mostly
southerners each weekend. Remembering your sig, I asked some of them to
define the difference between "naked" and "nekkid." To a man, I got the
same definition you offer from about 6 different people (albeit, not in such
polite terms...hehehe)

Jay B

[Morgans]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote
>
> BTW, I work the NASCAR circuit for FOX and NBC so I'm with mostly
> southerners each weekend. Remembering your sig, I asked some of them to
> define the difference between "naked" and "nekkid." To a man, I got the
> same definition you offer from about 6 different people (albeit, not in
such
> polite terms...hehehe)

It is a line from a Southern comedian, Foxworthy, I think.
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> To a man, I got the
> same definition you offer from about 6 different people (albeit, not in such
> polite terms...hehehe)

I'm not surprised -- my version comes from the southern author Lewis Grizard.

George Patterson
"Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Roger]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:26:21 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>>
>> One other thought: those who are feeling superior to these poor schmucks ought
>> to think back to when they were low time pilots. Have they never gotten lost?
>
>The pilot in command apparently is not low time.

Many years ago he apparently was named "Flying Farmer of The Year"
some place or other.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got
> no clothes on - and are up to somethin'.

[Roger]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 02:55:43 GMT, "airman"
> wrote:

>The CNN pilot-reporter, Miles O'Brien, made a good point. These guys took
>off from an uncontrolled airfield, implying that they were not adept with
>ordinary ATC as would pilots be who were trained or who are resident at a
>Class D or C towered field. I remember how difficult it was to train at a
>Class D airport, wishing that I could have made my early training hours
>easier at an un-towered field. Now I'm grateful for all the angst and
>mike-fright I went through and eventually overcame.

Never had that problem.
I trained out of an uncontrolled field, but it's only 11.3 to one that
is. My instructors made sure I was over there a lot.

Would it have made any difference had they taken off from a controlled
field? Most likely not.

When the President was here in Michigan the TFR was centered on MBS
which put us just slightly outside of the no fly zone. Still in the
TFR though. We sat there listening to a plane that was coming from
down around Detroit that had taken off from one of the controlled
fields. As he was tooling through MBS's air space he remarked,
"Ahhh... MBS approach, there's a jet off my wing tip! What does that
mean?" I remember he was headed for Harbor Beach which is one of the
rich resort areas.

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

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
Bucky > wrote:
>Michael Houghton wrote:
>> I call bull**** on you.
>> First for calling it "kidnapping".
>
>OK, "kidnapping" was overstated. Change it to "seized by force and
>intimidation".

Technically accurate, but overblown rhetoric.

The raid was a consequence of the refusal to surrender custody
of the boy as directed by a competent court, and in accordance
with basic principles of child custody. The family holding Elien
seemed unable to admit that the father should have custody since
the mother was dead. No sensible reason was adduced for why the
father was incompetent to have custody. If there was any
"kidnapping" going on, it was the extended family doing it,
and the raid could be cast as a "rescue mission". Given the
posturing by the family, using a display of force to intimidate
the "kidnappers" to prevent them from resisting was not way out
of line.
>
>> Second for
>> misrepresenting the placement of the rifle
>
>What part of "pointing an assault rifle inches from the boy's face" was
>misrepresented?
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/elian/elian_a.jpg
>
>> (and conveniently ignoring
>> the important (and easily seen) placement of the trigger finger).
>
>Oh that's right, with the barrel of an assault rifle pointed inches
>from his face, Elian was able to remain calm and unfrightened because
>he noticed that the agent's trigger finger was one inch away from the
>trigger. It was nice to know this fact afterwards, but during the
>situation it was irrelevant where the trigger finger was or whether the
>rifle was even loaded.

The detail of where the officer's trigger finger was placed shows that
the officer was using proper gun discipline. Eline is clearly frightened
in that picture. Who wouldn't be? Objectively, there was very little risk
of an accidental discharge of the gun. In addition, note that the gun
appears to be clearly pointed at the man holding Elien, not Elien.

You chose to use language that seriously miscast the whole affair as
some sort of abuse of authority. In point of fact and law, the raid was
most akin to a hostage rescue -- one carried off with no casualties aside,
possibly, from some underwear.
>
>Well, you only addressed my example. So does that mean you concur with
>the first part of my statement? "This kind of treatment is routine. If
>this is the worst case of unnecessary force used by law enforcement,
>then we're in really good shape."
>
I reject your thesis that that was "unnecessary force". What basis do you
have for that claim? Without that thesis, the rest of your statement has
no value.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/