Discussion on dealing with future ADIZ Incursions by light A/C

[Hank Rausch]

I would like to start a thread on what I see as the most pertinent
take-away from yesterday's incursion: How can the current responses be
modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost? Assuming pilots won't
get lost in the future doesn't seem very realistic (how many of us can
say that we were never lost?). And there seems to be general consensus
that the images on CNN of F-16's cavorting while the Cessna put-putted
its merry way, interspersed with shots of people fleeing the Capitol,
were faintly ridiculous and put the US in a bad light. So what's the
solution? CNN showed a red-green laser system they want to use to
signal pilots, but it's not clear how this would have addressed the
most recent incursion.

One of the issues is that there is no easy way to distinguish a 1200
sqawk from an L-4 (no, or minimum, threat) from the same squawk from a
G-4, which I think all of can agree could do significant damage.
Consequently, we adopt a one-resposne fits all policy to any incursion.
Are there any technological tricks which would help tailor the response
to the type of ariplane involved?

Hank Rausch
N8806T

[Larry Dighera]

On 12 May 2005 09:20:01 -0700, "Hank Rausch"
> wrote in
. com>::

>How can the current responses be
>modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
>inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost?


Your premise for your proposed discussion presupposes that an ADIZ or
Prohibited Area are effective security measures. Until that is proven
true, talk of responses to incursions into them is moot, IMHO.

[Hank Rausch]

Good possible topic for another thread, but in light of what happened
yesterday, do you realistically see the ADIZ going away any time soon?
There was a fellow on the tube last night talking about expanding to
100nm.

[Jay Honeck]

>I would like to start a thread on what I see as the most pertinent
> take-away from yesterday's incursion: How can the current responses be
> modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
> inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost? Assuming pilots won't
> get lost in the future doesn't seem very realistic

You've already lost the argument by pre-supposing that pilots will continue
to be idiots.

>CNN showed a red-green laser system they want to use to
> signal pilots, but it's not clear how this would have addressed the
> most recent incursion.

Anyone stupid enough to fly over Washington, D.C.'s most sensitive areas
would probably wonder what all the pretty lights were for...

No, the solution was EDUCATION of pilots, BY PILOTS. Peer pressure can be a
wonderfully effective thing, and we should be doing our best to either
educate or eliminate "pilots" such as these.

Unfortunately, I fear that the time for education may have passed us by, and
the Feds will be forced to assume that we are all morons.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Chris Colohan]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:
> Anyone stupid enough to fly over Washington, D.C.'s most sensitive areas
> would probably wonder what all the pretty lights were for...
>
> No, the solution was EDUCATION of pilots, BY PILOTS. Peer pressure can be a
> wonderfully effective thing, and we should be doing our best to either
> educate or eliminate "pilots" such as these.

Another potential solution: charge pilots for the intercept. No
punishment, merely pass on the costs: bill stupid pilots for the cost
of the controller's time, blackhawk air & pilot time, and F16 air &
pilot time.

Perhaps the threat of receiving a $10,000 or more bill (not a fine,
merely a bill) will make folks more aware.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

[Dudley Henriques]

"Hank Rausch" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Good possible topic for another thread, but in light of what happened
> yesterday, do you realistically see the ADIZ going away any time soon?
> There was a fellow on the tube last night talking about expanding to
> 100nm.

I can tell you one thing for sure, and the equation doesn't require a bomb
to go off either.
You can take it to the bank that the government has considered the sheer
propaganda value to the terrorist movement of a single aircraft, GA or
otherwise, managing to slip through these restricted areas and crash as a
simple suicide into ANY valuable American target. The effect of this
happening would be like an adrenalin shot for the terrorist world.
The government absolutely can NOT allow this to happen and will most likely
take every conceivable precaution to prevent just such an occurrence from
taking place.
I'm afraid it's not going to be a very "happy time" for General Aviation as
these threat options are considered and acted upon.
Personally, I think what's out there now is just the tip of a very big
"government control"iceberg.
Dudley Henriques

[Andrew Gideon]

Chris Colohan wrote:

> Perhaps the threat of receiving a $10,000 or more bill (not a fine,
> merely a bill) will make folks more aware.

Some pilots with more money than sense might do this deliberately to get a
chance to fly formation with F-16s.

Come to think of it, forget I wrote "than sense"; it sounds like a fun way
to spend an extra $10,000 one might have sitting around.

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:16:37 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in
t>::

>Personally, I think what's out there now is just the tip of a very big
>"government control"iceberg.

I think you're correct. The government is running scared of a
potential domestic insurrection as a result of population growth, and
taking this opportunity to put into place the (il)legal basis for
responding to any hint of it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> [...]
> Come to think of it, forget I wrote "than sense"; it sounds like a fun way
> to spend an extra $10,000 one might have sitting around.

lol...

Why wait for the fine? Right now, you can get the formation flight at no
cost whatsoever!

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message nk.net...
>
>
> I can tell you one thing for sure, and the equation doesn't require a bomb to go off either.
> You can take it to the bank that the government has considered the sheer propaganda value to the terrorist movement of
> a single aircraft, GA or otherwise, managing to slip through these restricted areas and crash as a simple suicide into
> ANY valuable American target. The effect of this happening would be like an adrenalin shot for the terrorist world.
> The government absolutely can NOT allow this to happen and will most likely take every conceivable precaution to
> prevent just such an occurrence from taking place.
> I'm afraid it's not going to be a very "happy time" for General Aviation as these threat options are considered and
> acted upon.
> Personally, I think what's out there now is just the tip of a very big "government control"iceberg.
> Dudley Henriques
>

No, if an aircraft managed to crash in to something, then the folks in gov'ment would spin it into some deranged
individual acting alone or similar; they would be absolutely sure to make it a non-terrorist event...

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I think you're correct. The government is running scared of a
> potential domestic insurrection as a result of population growth, and
> taking this opportunity to put into place the (il)legal basis for
> responding to any hint of it.

are we going just a bit over the top here?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[John Lakesford]

I don't know the answer to that, but I do have an opinion about what
will eventually happen, and it won't be because some pilot made a
mistake.

There are, being generous, about 1,000,000 pilots in this country.
Probably less are active pilots, and even amoung the active, less are
proficient.

There are over 300,000,000 people living in this country. If you do
the math, you see that pilots are a tiny minority of the general
population.

We have no clout. I don't care how many AOPA members there are, we
have no real clout. When McVeigh blew up the Federal building, I
didn't see anyone immediately halting the rental of large trucks, nor
was the sale of fertilizer stopped. People could still buy diesel.

But when three planes hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, all
flight, including of all places Alaska, was halted. The reason was
that although I was afraid of trucks parked in front of buildings for
a while, there were just too many of them and too few light aircraft.

The reality here is this. We will be restricted as the European pilots
are now. It's just a matter of time. And since we are viewed
essentually as a bunch of Saturday and Sunday flying enthusiasts - it
will be easy to make draconian restrictions that we will fight and
lose.

The gravy days of flight are gone. When I was young, I could hop in my
dads Champ and fly about with nary a care. It's sad to see them go.


On 12 May 2005 09:20:01 -0700, "Hank Rausch"
> wrote:

>I would like to start a thread on what I see as the most pertinent
>take-away from yesterday's incursion: How can the current responses be
>modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
>inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost? Assuming pilots won't
>get lost in the future doesn't seem very realistic (how many of us can
>say that we were never lost?). And there seems to be general consensus
>that the images on CNN of F-16's cavorting while the Cessna put-putted
>its merry way, interspersed with shots of people fleeing the Capitol,
>were faintly ridiculous and put the US in a bad light. So what's the
>solution? CNN showed a red-green laser system they want to use to
>signal pilots, but it's not clear how this would have addressed the
>most recent incursion.
>
>One of the issues is that there is no easy way to distinguish a 1200
>sqawk from an L-4 (no, or minimum, threat) from the same squawk from a
>G-4, which I think all of can agree could do significant damage.
>Consequently, we adopt a one-resposne fits all policy to any incursion.
>Are there any technological tricks which would help tailor the response
>to the type of ariplane involved?
>
>Hank Rausch
>N8806T

[Jay Honeck]

> The gravy days of flight are gone. When I was young, I could hop in my
> dads Champ and fly about with nary a care. It's sad to see them go.

Not quite. Come to the Midwest -- the flying is still the same.

For now, anyway.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:91Mge.76032$c24.60809@attbi_s72...
> >I would like to start a thread on what I see as the most pertinent
>> take-away from yesterday's incursion: How can the current responses be
>> modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
>> inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost? Assuming pilots won't
>> get lost in the future doesn't seem very realistic
>
> You've already lost the argument by pre-supposing that pilots will
> continue to be idiots.
>
>>CNN showed a red-green laser system they want to use to
>> signal pilots, but it's not clear how this would have addressed the
>> most recent incursion.
>
> Anyone stupid enough to fly over Washington, D.C.'s most sensitive areas
> would probably wonder what all the pretty lights were for...
>
> No, the solution was EDUCATION of pilots, BY PILOTS. Peer pressure can be
> a wonderfully effective thing, and we should be doing our best to either
> educate or eliminate "pilots" such as these.
>
> Unfortunately, I fear that the time for education may have passed us by,
> and the Feds will be forced to assume that we are all morons.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I agree with Jay on this one. The GA community loses everytime some idiot
does something like this. They should shoot the next one down.

Mike
MU-2

[Jose]

> How can the current responses be
> modified to make the response more relevant to the threat

What threat?

Serious question - identify the "threat" we are supposed to respond to,
and put it in context with other similar threats, and then it would make
sense to talk about possible reactions.

Personally, I see no threat whatsoever when a 150 flies over the White
House. Before we can identify the solution, it's important to identify
the problem, and be sure we are all talking about the -same- problem,
and be sure it -is- a problem.

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

[Jose]

> You've already lost the argument by pre-supposing that pilots will continue
> to be idiots.

Was there an argument? And yes, pilots will continue to make mistakes.

Except you of course.

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>
>> I can tell you one thing for sure, and the equation doesn't require a
>> bomb to go off either.
>> You can take it to the bank that the government has considered the sheer
>> propaganda value to the terrorist movement of a single aircraft, GA or
>> otherwise, managing to slip through these restricted areas and crash as a
>> simple suicide into ANY valuable American target. The effect of this
>> happening would be like an adrenalin shot for the terrorist world.
>> The government absolutely can NOT allow this to happen and will most
>> likely take every conceivable precaution to prevent just such an
>> occurrence from taking place.
>> I'm afraid it's not going to be a very "happy time" for General Aviation
>> as these threat options are considered and acted upon.
>> Personally, I think what's out there now is just the tip of a very big
>> "government control"iceberg.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>
> No, if an aircraft managed to crash in to something, then the folks in
> gov'ment would spin it into some deranged individual acting alone or
> similar; they would be absolutely sure to make it a non-terrorist event...

In this case the answer would be "yes" wouldn't it? :-) No doubt the
government would spin it. In fact, they would do everything in their power
to negate the terrorist's mission.
Spinning it is just one possible option the government would use to take the
sting out of the propaganda value terrorists would most certainly be present
if the pilot of such a mission was indeed a terrorist.
I honestly believe these last two in that 150 came within a hair's breath of
being shot down. The next one to wander into one of these areas might not be
so lucky!
Dudley Henriques

[George Patterson]

Chris Colohan wrote:
>
> Another potential solution: charge pilots for the intercept. No
> punishment, merely pass on the costs: bill stupid pilots for the cost
> of the controller's time, blackhawk air & pilot time, and F16 air &
> pilot time.
>
> Perhaps the threat of receiving a $10,000 or more bill (not a fine,
> merely a bill) will make folks more aware.

I think that after you factor in the costs of the panic/shutdown and business
loss, that you're looking at something more like $250,000. An G-d help you if
someone gets hurt during the evacuation.

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

[George Patterson]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> I honestly believe these last two in that 150 came within a hair's breath of
> being shot down. The next one to wander into one of these areas might not be
> so lucky!

I've seen photos of Phalanx batteries being installed in the city. Probably just
a matter of time.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CcTge.77122$WI3.35627@attbi_s71...
> > The gravy days of flight are gone. When I was young, I could hop in my
> > dads Champ and fly about with nary a care. It's sad to see them go.
>
> Not quite. Come to the Midwest -- the flying is still the same.

On second thought don't. We like the lack of traffic.

>
> For now, anyway.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
> I've seen photos of Phalanx batteries being installed in the city.
> Probably just a matter of time.


Great system. Many things going up in the Cessna's general direction. So
what happens to those projectiles that miss the little Cessna?


Montblack

[[email protected]]

No, the solution was EDUCATION of pilots, BY PILOTS

One fine day overhead DC at 2000ft AGL in a C150.
Student to instructor: 'Do you think we are allowed to fly here?'
Instructor: 'Hmmm, lets have a look.....Yep, I'm sure we can'
Student: 'Oh, what makes you so sure?'
Instructor: 'Look at all those F16's, they fly here'

-Kees

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Larry Dighera wrote:
> I think you're correct. The government is running scared of a
> potential domestic insurrection as a result of population growth, and
> taking this opportunity to put into place the (il)legal basis for
> responding to any hint of it.

Whilst the vast majority of Americans enjoy a good, at least middle
class lifestyle, there will be no revolt or insurrection. Can you
imagine any typical middle class person sacrificing their nice
comfortable life for civil war? No, neither can I. It ain't gonna happen
unless the standard of living in the US collapses (and by collapse, I
mean to near famine levels - countries like Mexico which are endemic
with grinding poverty aren't in danger of insurrection).

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

[Dylan Smith]

In article t>, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> I agree with Jay on this one. The GA community loses everytime some idiot
> does something like this. They should shoot the next one down.

I strongly disagree - to do so would be unjust, especially to the people
whom the wreckage falls upon. In a densely populated area like DC, it's
quite likely that someone on the ground would be hurt or killed by the
flaming wreckage accelerated towards earth at 9.8m/s^2.

Throw the book at them for sure - just as you would anyone who violated
a P-area or penetrated the ADIZ without following the proper procedure.
But killing them would be barbaric, and do far more harm to GA than
using proper justice.

Do you really believe people should be killed by other people for making
honest mistakes in a civilized country? I certainly don't.

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("George Patterson" wrote)
>> I've seen photos of Phalanx batteries being installed in the city.
>> Probably just a matter of time.
>
>
> Great system. Many things going up in the Cessna's general direction. So
> what happens to those projectiles that miss the little Cessna?
>
>
> Montblack

From what I understand, It's been considered and factored into the equation.
Hit or miss, the order to destruct WILL be issued at a certain point.
Each time this happens, the trigger finger squeezes just a little bit more.
There are rational military people on the job when this happens who have
been given a certain amount of empowerment to take reasonable steps if in
doubt..as was the case with this Cessna, but there is a "go" point within
the perimeter that if reached, the decision becomes automatic and will NOT
be reversed. If some clod wanders in deep enough to reach that point,
collateral damage is no longer the issue. It's been factored in as
"acceptable loss".
This is not the same world that it was before 9-11.
Dudley Henriques

[Hank Rausch]

quoted from Jose's post:

>What threat?

>Serious question - identify the "threat" we are supposed to respond
to,
>and put it in context with other similar threats, and then it would
make
>sense to talk about possible reactions.

Thank you, this is the heart of the question--the ADIZ creates a buffer
zone that allows civil defense time to characterize the nature and
intent of unidentified aircraft before they can reach a high value
target. But its most serious flaw is that presently, we have no good
way of sorting out incursions due to navigational error or
communications failures from a genuine hostile attack, without
scrambling fighters and evacuating people, which resulted in the fiasco
we saw on the 11th and also the fiasco that resulted when the Kentucky
Governor's plane's transponder failed.

Contributing to the problem is the very planes that are most likely to
cause the problems--light trainers with rudimentary navigation and
dodgy communication equipment, and (arguably) less skillful PIC's--
also present the least viable potential threat. Because the current
technology only allows for a "one size fits all" interdiction policy,
we have the mess we're in currently. If there were a way to determine,
at point of incursion, what the plane is, we could tailor the response,
and avoid the bad publicity and general ignominy we saw with this last
incursion.

Hank

[Icebound]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
. net...
>
....snip...
> This is not the same world that it was before 9-11.


Actually, it is. We are just trying very hard to pretend it is not.

There was terrorism before 9/11. There were nuclear bombs, ground wars, air
wars, genocide, many *hundreds* of thousands of people killed on side or
another. There were oppressive dictators and benevolent democracies. There
were the nourished, the privileged, and the starving. There were civil
airliners shot down. There were the "just" wars, and there were the imperial
oppressions.

There were air blitzes on cities and countryside, with thousands dying.

What is so different now?

[Jose]

>> Serious question - identify the "threat" we are supposed to respond
>> to, and put it in context with other similar threats, and then it would
>> make sense to talk about possible reactions.
>
>
> Thank you, this is the heart of the question--the ADIZ creates a buffer
> zone that allows civil defense time to characterize the nature and
> intent of unidentified aircraft before they can reach a high value
> target.

Why is this necessary? It's not done with cars, itenerant rental vans,
people with colds or ebola virus, or ideas on the internet.

Why is this done only at the Capitol? It can be reasonably argued that
there are equally high value targets around every major city, and parts
of the midwest.

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

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Icebound wrote:
> There was terrorism before 9/11.

Indeed. I've lived most of my life (and got on with it) with 'the
shadow of terror'. In fact, news of yet another bomb from either the IRA
or one of the loyalist paramilitaries was so common place it barely
registered with me at one point.

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

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> It's not done with cars, itenerant rental vans,
> people with colds or ebola virus, or ideas on the internet.

Well, cars and trucks are intercepted entering Manhattan. Easy enough to do with
an island.

> Why is this done only at the Capitol? It can be reasonably argued that
> there are equally high value targets around every major city, and parts
> of the midwest.

Hush! Mayor Daley has been asking exactly the same question for years. You want
to have to fly around another ADIZ to get to Oshkosh?

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:njVge.4958$1f5.2987@trndny01...
> Chris Colohan wrote:
> >
> > Another potential solution: charge pilots for the intercept. No
> > punishment, merely pass on the costs: bill stupid pilots for the cost
> > of the controller's time, blackhawk air & pilot time, and F16 air &
> > pilot time.
> >
> > Perhaps the threat of receiving a $10,000 or more bill (not a fine,
> > merely a bill) will make folks more aware.
>
> I think that after you factor in the costs of the panic/shutdown and
business
> loss, that you're looking at something more like $250,000. An G-d help you
if
> someone gets hurt during the evacuation.

Only if you've got deep pockets. Otherwise, no level stupidity gets
punished.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:CcTge.77122$WI3.35627@attbi_s71...
> > > The gravy days of flight are gone. When I was young, I could hop in my
> > > dads Champ and fly about with nary a care. It's sad to see them go.
> >
> > Not quite. Come to the Midwest -- the flying is still the same.
>
> On second thought don't. We like the lack of traffic.
>
Ummm...that the Midwest. Where are you flying?

BTW, come out to the front range of the Rockies; maneuvering around all the
MOA's is like dodging shoppers in the aisle of a Wal-Mart.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, the solution was EDUCATION of pilots, BY PILOTS
>
> One fine day overhead DC at 2000ft AGL in a C150.
> Student to instructor: 'Do you think we are allowed to fly here?'
> Instructor: 'Hmmm, lets have a look.....Yep, I'm sure we can'
> Student: 'Oh, what makes you so sure?'
> Instructor: 'Look at all those F16's, they fly here'
>

Given that so many public school students are incredibly geographically
challenged, I could imagine that a couple pilots didn't recognize the "Big
Johnson" and assorted landmarks they were flying over.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Larry Dighera
wrote:
> > I think you're correct. The government is running scared of a
> > potential domestic insurrection as a result of population growth, and
> > taking this opportunity to put into place the (il)legal basis for
> > responding to any hint of it.
>
> Whilst the vast majority of Americans enjoy a good, at least middle
> class lifestyle, there will be no revolt or insurrection. Can you
> imagine any typical middle class person sacrificing their nice
> comfortable life for civil war? No, neither can I. It ain't gonna happen
> unless the standard of living in the US collapses (and by collapse, I
> mean to near famine levels - countries like Mexico which are endemic
> with grinding poverty aren't in danger of insurrection).

It's happened twice before in our country.

But probably the surest way to instigate an insurrection would be to cut the
cable TV feeds for ESPN and MTV.

[Dave Stadt]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> . net...
> >
> ...snip...
> > This is not the same world that it was before 9-11.
>
>
> Actually, it is. We are just trying very hard to pretend it is not.
>
> There was terrorism before 9/11. There were nuclear bombs, ground wars,
air
> wars, genocide, many *hundreds* of thousands of people killed on side or
> another. There were oppressive dictators and benevolent democracies.
There
> were the nourished, the privileged, and the starving. There were civil
> airliners shot down. There were the "just" wars, and there were the
imperial
> oppressions.
>
> There were air blitzes on cities and countryside, with thousands dying.
>
> What is so different now?

What is different is the U.S. government got involved and as it always does
in such situations its responds by punishing its law abiding citizens.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> > . net...
> > >
> > ...snip...
> > > This is not the same world that it was before 9-11.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it is. We are just trying very hard to pretend it is not.
> >
> > There was terrorism before 9/11. There were nuclear bombs, ground wars,
> air
> > wars, genocide, many *hundreds* of thousands of people killed on side
or
> > another. There were oppressive dictators and benevolent democracies.
> There
> > were the nourished, the privileged, and the starving. There were civil
> > airliners shot down. There were the "just" wars, and there were the
> imperial
> > oppressions.
> >
> > There were air blitzes on cities and countryside, with thousands dying.
> >
> > What is so different now?
>
> What is different is the U.S. government got involved and as it always
does
> in such situations its responds by punishing its law abiding citizens.

And the US government is alone in this?

[Jose]

> Well, cars and trucks are intercepted entering Manhattan. Easy enough to do with an island.

Cars and trucks entering Manhattan don't have to be on an authorized
flight plan, nor do they have to be tracked after they enter.

> Mayor Daley has been asking exactly the same question for years. You want to have to fly around another ADIZ to get to Oshkosh?

Since I'm not going to Oshkosh, why should I care?

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Well, cars and trucks are intercepted entering Manhattan. Easy enough to do
> > with an island.
>
> Cars and trucks entering Manhattan don't have to be on an authorized
> flight plan, nor do they have to be tracked after they enter.

Then clearly authorization should be required of those danagerous vehicles.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dudley Henriques]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
> ...snip...
>> This is not the same world that it was before 9-11.
>
>
> Actually, it is. We are just trying very hard to pretend it is not.
>
> There was terrorism before 9/11. There were nuclear bombs, ground wars,
> air wars, genocide, many *hundreds* of thousands of people killed on side
> or another. There were oppressive dictators and benevolent democracies.
> There were the nourished, the privileged, and the starving. There were
> civil airliners shot down. There were the "just" wars, and there were the
> imperial oppressions.
>
> There were air blitzes on cities and countryside, with thousands dying.
>
> What is so different now?

All of the above is true, but 9-11 changed everything anyway.

The same things are still going on; it's just that enough people were
temporarily paying attention after 9-11 that the politicians had to take
notice.
I have no doubt that given enough time without another hit.....based on past
experience......we will probably as a nation go right back into the same
denial and ignore mode we were in before 9-11.
Dudley Henriques

[Blueskies]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>

> Ummm...that the Midwest. Where are you flying?
>
> BTW, come out to the front range of the Rockies; maneuvering around all the
> MOA's is like dodging shoppers in the aisle of a Wal-Mart.
>
>

MOAs are shared airspace, right?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:12:14 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>::

>
>> BTW, come out to the front range of the Rockies; maneuvering around all the
>> MOA's is like dodging shoppers in the aisle of a Wal-Mart.
>>
>
>MOAs are shared airspace, right?


Correct. Joint Use is the term. MTRs are also Joint Use, but the
military doesn't seem to know that.

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> Cars and trucks entering Manhattan don't have to be on an authorized
> flight plan, nor do they have to be tracked after they enter.

No, they have to be searched *before* they enter. In addition, at times, trucks
and vans are subject to random stops in the city. It's playing hell with some of
the businesses who send service techs out (like HVAC installers). The frequency
of these searches depends entirely on the security level, and Manhattan has its
own. With cars, it's more of a random deal on the bridges and in the tunnels.

Perhaps the solution to the ADIZ is to set up search stations outside of DC.
Land, get the plane checked out, get a squawk code, take off again, and go on
through. That's basically what NY is doing with trucks.

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'.

[Casey Wilson]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:lNVge.1398$Ld4.272@trndny04...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>> I honestly believe these last two in that 150 came within a hair's breath
>> of being shot down. The next one to wander into one of these areas might
>> not be so lucky!
>
> I've seen photos of Phalanx batteries being installed in the city.
> Probably just a matter of time.
>
> George Patterson
> There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
> mashed potatoes.

George, can you point me to a site for these photos? As far as I know,
the Phalanx weapon system was never configured for ground operation, except
for some live range testing conducted at the Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division.

[George Patterson]

Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> George, can you point me to a site for these photos?

Sorry. It was Patriot missile systems (well, it *starts* with "p").

I realized my mistake when someone else posted about them.

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'.

[Kev]

> I honestly believe these last two in that 150 came within a hair's
breath of
> being shot down

You're probably right. Did you read the interview with one of the
fighter pilots?

http://premium.cnn.com/2005/US/05/12/cnna.lehmann/

Whoever chose this fellow wanted someone who'll follow orders.

[Casey Wilson]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:qTche.369$KQ6.52@trndny02...
> Casey Wilson wrote:
> >
>> George, can you point me to a site for these photos?
>
> Sorry. It was Patriot missile systems (well, it *starts* with "p").
>
> I realized my mistake when someone else posted about them.
>
> 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'.

Simple enough. Thanks, George.

[Jose]

> No, [cars and trucks] they have to be searched *before* they enter [Manhattan].

I drive into Manhattan all the time, and I've never been searched or
stopped (except by traffic <g>). At least they are picking on trucks
more than cars. The FRZ picks on little planes instead of big ones.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Kev wrote:

>>I honestly believe these last two in that 150 came within a hair's
>
> breath of
>
>>being shot down
>
>
> You're probably right. Did you read the interview with one of the
> fighter pilots?
>
> http://premium.cnn.com/2005/US/05/12/cnna.lehmann/
>
> Whoever chose this fellow wanted someone who'll follow orders.
>

I hope that is true of all of the military personnel who are defending
our nation.


Matt