It was really close...

[Jay Honeck]

Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago

As a wayward Cessna flew deep in restricted airspace, national security
officials were on the phone discussing whether to implement the last line of
defense: shooting it down.

The single-engine Cessna that prompted a frenzied evacuation of the White
House, Capitol and Supreme Court on Wednesday veered away from downtown
landmarks just before that decision needed to be made.

But it was a close call.

One senior Bush administration counterterrorism official said it was "a real
finger-biting period because they came very close to ordering a shot against
a general aircraft."

"How many more seconds away or minutes - it was within a very small window
where there would have been the decision," said the official, who spoke only
on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Administration officials spent Thursday reviewing the bizarre series of
events involving the small plane, which was carrying a pilot and a student
pilot from Pennsylvania to an air show in North Carolina. It entered
restricted airspace and then continued flying toward highly sensitive areas,
prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of people as military aircraft
scrambled to intercept it.

Hundreds of planes have encroached on the airspace since the Sept. 11
attacks, but none is believed to have gone so far - within three miles of
the White House.

Lt. Col. Tim Lehmann, one of two F-16 fighter pilots who tracked the Cessna,
said he was prepared to use deadly force. He said he realized how serious
the situation became when he looked at the Cessna and saw the Washington
Monument in the background.

"We may have been on the cusp of some kind of engagement," Lehmann said. "I
don't know how close we came."

A response system put in place after the attacks, coordinated in part by the
Homeland Security Department's classified operations center, alerted other
areas of the federal government to the incoming plane. Security forces at
individual facilities and agencies decided on a case-by-case basis whether
to evacuate or raise their alert level.

Alert levels at the White House and the Capitol were raised to their highest
level - red - at the height of the frenzy.

President Bush, biking at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in
Beltsville, Md., was unaware of the midday scare as it was occurring. His
security detail knew of the raised threat level but did not tell him.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said that a review of how the
situation was handled was being conducted. But he said Bush was not upset
that he was not filled in.

"The president has a great amount of trust in his security detail,"
McClellan said. "If there are any improvements that need to be made, they
will be made."

Immediately after the Cessna entered the restricted 30-mile radius Air
Defense Identification Zone at 11:28 a.m. EDT, authorities activated the
Domestic Events Network to share information as they tracked the plane. The
network, a conference call of officials from the Homeland Security
Department, Customs and Border Protection, the Pentagon, the Federal
Aviation Administration and a handful of other agencies, lasted until the
Cessna landed just over an hour later.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was apprised of the situation as it
unfolded. He is among a small handful of top Pentagon officials who can
order a shootdown. The president also may give such an order.

Pentagon officials sought to play down the incident, saying the small plane
was not seen as a serious threat and did not come close to being shot down.
Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined to comment on how
close it was.

Brian Jenkins, counterterrorism analyst for the RAND Corp. think tank,
agreed the threat from the Cessna was limited.

"The quantity of explosives that you can pack in a little Cessna is not the
quantity of explosives you see placed in these big truck bombs," Jenkins
said. "In terms of explosives, it probably could not do that much damage."

However, government officials also had to consider the possibility it was
carrying chemical or biological weapons. A relatively small amount of either
could have devastating effects.

Customs officials scrambled a Black Hawk helicopter and a Cessna Citation
jet at 11:47 a.m. to intercept the plane and were joined a few minutes later
by two Air National Guard F-16 fighter jets.

The Cessna pilot appeared confused by the aircraft escort and did not
respond to repeated signals ordering the plane to turn away. The F-16s fired
four warning flares before the Cessna finally veered west and away from the
secure zone. They landed safely at an airport in Frederick, Md. Officials
Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane

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

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message

> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>
> As a wayward Cessna

What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate action
taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right into
probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world, but,
according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this errant
course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing paths and
ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going on? Just how
stupid do you have to be?

[Montblack]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
[snip]
> As a wayward Cessna flew deep in restricted airspace, national security
> officials were on the phone discussing whether to implement the last line
> of defense: shooting it down.


So, where do "the other" bullets go? You know, the ones that miss their
target?


Montblack

[EastWing]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> [snip]
> > As a wayward Cessna flew deep in restricted airspace, national security
> > officials were on the phone discussing whether to implement the last
line
> > of defense: shooting it down.
>
>
> So, where do "the other" bullets go? You know, the ones that miss their
> target?
>

Collateral damage.

[[email protected]]

Hmm, not to mention a 300lb engine and two (about)170lb bodies.
Don't want to have them coming through my roof.

-Kees

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Montblack wrote:
> So, where do "the other" bullets go? You know, the ones that miss their
> target?


What goes up must come down. Somewhere.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Denny]

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

************************************************** *****************************
Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

The Patriot Act, is not...

denny

[OtisWinslow]

I'm sure there'll be action against the pilot. The FAA won't
just let it slide.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
>> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>
>> As a wayward Cessna
>
> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
> action taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right
> into probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world,
> but, according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this
> errant course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing
> paths and ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going
> on? Just how stupid do you have to be?
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
> ************************************************** *****************************
> Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
> lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
> feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
> ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

Denny, normally I'm right with you and your thoughts -- but this is an
absurd comparison.

We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it. To compare
this situation to what the Nazis did is to trivialize the death of millions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
> action taken against these two nimrods.

Why do you say that?

I would expect at least a suspension.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> well-defined reasons, <snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No we don't.




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Sport Pilot]

The plane was already 15 miles in a 30 mile zone when the F 16 took off
and was only 3 miles out when intercepted. If this was a terrorist
piloted airliner from Reagan National, takeing a northbound left turn
instead of right. The WH or capitol would be toast.

[Sport Pilot]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> > Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
> > By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
> >
> > As a wayward Cessna
>
> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
action
> taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right into
> probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world,
but,
> according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this
errant
> course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing paths
and
> ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going on?
Just how
> stupid do you have to be?


Maybe they were told the wrong vector by controllers. Or maybe they
were Homeland Security agents to test the system? Just kidding.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> well-defined reasons,
>

And what would those be?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Alan]

I'm kind of tired of the Nazi card being continuously played by those
who disagree with the Patriot Act, George Bush and the government in
general. Read your history, what we have in the here and now in
this country bears no resemblance to Nazi Germany. Or, for Wilsonian
America from 1917-1919 during WWI. This Democrat President
implemented draconian policies and curbs on speech and liberty that
went far beyond anything the current Republican administration is
doing. Prison sentences of over 10 years were handed out for
publicly opposing the US entry into the war.

Not just the USA but the history of the human race has a record of
over-responding to threats or danger. Another Democrat put American
citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps. The Chinese
kind of over did it on a wall. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among
other things. Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
faced with invaders.

I'm not worried about school children crossing a line in a playground
and getting arrested for sedition. I'm more concerned about
clue-less pilots who either operate in a vacuum or are two
stupid/arrogant to check the airspace and plan accordingly. That kind
of behavior will trigger an over reaction to general aviation that
affects us all.

So stop telling me we have become Nazi Germany and that Bush is
Hitler. It does a real disservice to the millions who perished
opposing the real thing.

Alan Bloom
Dogs can Fly.
http://www.flyingmutts.com


On 13 May 2005 04:18:29 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
>because I wasn't a Communist.
>
>Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
>trade unionist.
>
>Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
>Protestant.
>
>Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
>************************************************** *****************************
>Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
>lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
>feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
>ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?
>
>The Patriot Act, is not...
>
>denny

[Jose]

> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.

No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.

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

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear
and
> > well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.
>
> No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.
>

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
name just one.

I don't know what they're doing to restrict trucks from getting close
enough, and a 5000# fertilizer bomb probably doesn't need to get too
close to leave a mark. Heck, I'd assume they're not doing enough. I
would also say that intercepting a 206 in mid-air is the least
efficient way to deal with that threat profile, but it would seem to be
pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
done before.

http://avstop.com/news/CessnaSingleEngine.html

Best,
-cwk.

[Marco Leon]

Not so sure. Remember that guy in the Mooney that flew over LaGuardia
airport, down the East River in New York City, finally told on the radio of
his error, then decides to take a little spin around the Statue of Liberty
for some sightseeing while a helicopter was awaiting a few miles south to
escort him?

Well, he's still flying and was flying within a week after this happened.
Unless someone knows something specific my anecdotal evidence shows that a
front-page news grabber screw-up does not guarantee certificate action.

Marco

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QH0he.76190$NU4.65923@attbi_s22...
> > What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
> > action taken against these two nimrods.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> I would expect at least a suspension.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Alan,

> Read your history, what we have in the here and now in
> this country bears no resemblance to Nazi Germany.
>

Not in all aspects by a long shot. But it is not every country that
starts a war of aggression...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Christopher Campbell]

On 5/12/05 10:39 PM, in article , "John
Gaquin" > wrote:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
>> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>
>> As a wayward Cessna
>
> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate action
> taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right into
> probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world, but,
> according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this errant
> course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing paths and
> ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going on? Just how
> stupid do you have to be?
>

Actually, the way I read it, they will not be charged with any criminal
acts. Certificate action is another matter. I doubt that any certificate
action will be taken against a student pilot. The FAA will most likely
suspend the certificate of the PIC for some period of time or until he
receives retraining.

>

[W P Dixon]

Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession. Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since 1861 .
We really would not need a Patriot Act, if the Federals would do there
number one job...protect the borders of this country. I will be the first to
admit during times of war, extra measures have to be taken....but I have not
seen a Declaration of War since Dec. 1941.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm kind of tired of the Nazi card being continuously played by those
> who disagree with the Patriot Act, George Bush and the government in
> general. Read your history, what we have in the here and now in
> this country bears no resemblance to Nazi Germany. Or, for Wilsonian
> America from 1917-1919 during WWI. This Democrat President
> implemented draconian policies and curbs on speech and liberty that
> went far beyond anything the current Republican administration is
> doing. Prison sentences of over 10 years were handed out for
> publicly opposing the US entry into the war.
>
> Not just the USA but the history of the human race has a record of
> over-responding to threats or danger. Another Democrat put American
> citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps. The Chinese
> kind of over did it on a wall. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among
> other things. Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
> faced with invaders.
>
> I'm not worried about school children crossing a line in a playground
> and getting arrested for sedition. I'm more concerned about
> clue-less pilots who either operate in a vacuum or are two
> stupid/arrogant to check the airspace and plan accordingly. That kind
> of behavior will trigger an over reaction to general aviation that
> affects us all.
>
> So stop telling me we have become Nazi Germany and that Bush is
> Hitler. It does a real disservice to the millions who perished
> opposing the real thing.
>
> Alan Bloom
> Dogs can Fly.
> http://www.flyingmutts.com
>
>

[Jay Masino]

wrote:
> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.

So? There are terrorist groups all over the world wishing to carry out
attacks on all sorts of people/governments.


> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.

Maybe, but that doesn't warrant reductions in our freedoms.


> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.

So are every car, van, SUV and truck driving around in DC. And most of
them can carry a lot more explosive payload than the overwhelming majority
of GA aircraft. Someone could probably stab you to death with a butter
knife, but we're not worrying about butter knives, are we?


> Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
> piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
> WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
> name just one.

Why wouldn't they just drive up to their target? They'd attract a lot
less attention.

> I don't know what they're doing to restrict trucks from getting close
> enough, and a 5000# fertilizer bomb probably doesn't need to get too
> close to leave a mark. Heck, I'd assume they're not doing enough. I
> would also say that intercepting a 206 in mid-air is the least
> efficient way to deal with that threat profile, but it would seem to be
> pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
> done before.

Tell you what? How about the government locking all of us in our houses,
and not letting us out. That would solve the security problem. If they
see anyone outside their house, they can just shoot them immediately. I
realize that's an absurd example, but it makes the point. How much
freedom are we willing to give up for security against a relatively small
number of extremist islamists?

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Christopher Campbell]

On 5/13/05 4:18 AM, in article
. com, "Denny"
> wrote:

> In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
> because I wasn't a Communist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
> trade unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
> Protestant.
>
> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
>
************************************************** ****************************>
*
> Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
> lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
> feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
> ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?
>
> The Patriot Act, is not...
>

Be reasonable. The prohibited area around the White House has been there for
decades. No one was talking about shooting these guys down because they had
violated the ADIZ or the restricted areas. They were inside the original
prohibited area and not responding in any way to signals or radio calls.
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or anything else that the
current administration has done. The Cessna flew right over the Vice
President's home. It flew between Congress and the White House. How clueless
is that? It has been illegal to fly there since the height of the Cold War.
Personally, I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.

And yes, if your children start riding their bikes toward certain
installations, do not respond to calls for them to stop and ignore warning
shots, it is possible that someone is going to shoot them. And you know
what? That has always been true in every country and every time since the
beginning of history. Children can be very effective as soldiers, spies,
assassins and saboteurs.


> denny
>

[Thomas Borchert]

> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.

You sure? How high a risk is that, exactly? How high to be worth how
much of a restriction of constitutional freedom?

> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.

It happened once. Once.

> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.
>

Many other things are more possible means. Way more. Yet they are
totally unrestricted.

In the end, it comes down to weighing the desire for security against
the amount of freedom you restrict. Do you really think the current
restrictions on GA flying around DC do much to reduce the risk? With
airliners flying out of Reagan? With trucks going through the city? Or
is the more likely theory that GA pilots are a group so small that
politicians can easily restrict their freedom without too much
resistance while appearing to do something really effective in the eye
of the public, even it doesn't do much?

EFFECTIVE reductions of terror attack risk in the DC area would look
WAY different than this. And Joe Dumb Voter would feel them every day
of his life. And that's exactly why they aren't done.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Christopher,

> I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.
>

Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
as that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jose]

> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.
> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.
> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.
>
> Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are significant
statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well
defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of DC
were blockaded, and one needed prior authorization to enter or leave the
DC area - perhaps mediated by EZ-Pass and a RFID tag on driver licenses
(actually, not very farfetched at all). Since rental vans were used for
prior attacks, they are allowed to travel freely (so long as they belong
to one of the larger rental companies). However, every subcompact car
is suspect, since it can carry a bomb in the trunk.

The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and
every driver knows it.

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

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

[Andrew Gideon]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, he's still flying and was flying within a week after this happened.
> Unless someone knows something specific my anecdotal evidence shows that a
> front-page news grabber screw-up does not guarantee certificate action.

I'm glad that the news coverage will have no impact on the penalty; why
should it? But the TSA has been mandating 30 day suspensions for ADIZ
violations. Even if the FAA wanted to resist this (not that there's any
reason to do so), they can do nothing for the TSA but ask "how far over do
you want me to bend?"

The one wildcard in this is the NASA form. But I'm sure that issue already
arisen, as *some* previous ADIZ violators must have completed one. I just
don't know the outcome.

In the case of the NYC tourist, he "only" violated class B airspace. That's
a dramatically different thing from violating the useless ADIZ, at least in
the minds of those hunkering down.

I *am* surprised that he was flying again w/in a week, but I've no idea what
other circumstances surrounded that. Perhaps he NASA-formed his way out.
Perhaps he was given a remedial checkride instead of a suspension? I
simply don't know.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

wrote:


> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.
>
> Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?
>
> Yes, I agree a U-Haul looks like a far better delivery system, but a
> piston GA plane is not out of the question. The bomb used in the first
> WTC attack was 1,100 pounds, which is inside the envelope of a 206 to
> name just one.
[...]
> but it would seem to be
> pretty foolish to ignore it, especially considering that it has been
> done before.

No security expert would ever address the least likely scenario first
(unless the goal was something other than achieving security).

- Andrew

[Scott D.]

On 13 May 2005 04:18:29 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
>lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
>feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
>ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?
>
>The Patriot Act, is not...
>
>denny


But yet we have very visible lines at our borders where people are
crossing them everyday in droves but we cant seem to stop them.

Scott D

To email remove spamcatcher's

[Andrew Gideon]

W P Dixon wrote:

> We really would not need a Patriot Act, if the Federals would do there
> number one job...protect the borders of this country.

That's not quite correct. Have you an alarm in your home or office? Does
it include interior sensors (ie. motion or IR detectors) or just periphery
detectors?

Odds are you've both. And there's good reason: layered security is an
improvement.

That said, the entire Patriot act isn't about security. The new driver
license rules being pushed by the TSA are about security. Compare the two,
and you'll see a significant difference.

Further, interior security must always be balanced against the use of the
interior. Someone with large pets, for example, cannot use most motion or
IR detectors. While the person could simply get rid of the pets, that's a
price at least some are unwilling to pay.

Similarly, we could easily achieve perfect internal security in this
country. At what price, however?

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up
> because I wasn't a Communist.
>
> Then they came for the Jews. and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
> trade unionist.
>
> Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
> Protestant.
>
> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
>
************************************************** **************************
***
> Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
> lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
> feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
> ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?

Gee Denny, hindsight is sure 20/20.

>
> The Patriot Act, is not...

Nice leap there.

[George Patterson]

Tom Fleischman wrote:
>
> It really is unbelievable that they didn't realize where they were and
> what was going on around them for such a long period of time.

Agreed. Jay quotes "Lt. Col. Tim Lehmann .... said he realized how serious
the situation became when he looked at the Cessna and saw the Washington
Monument in the background."

I flew over D.C. once, back when they still called the airspace a TCA and its
top was something like 7,500'. Based on that, I'd say that the Cessna pilot
would have to be blind not to have a good idea where they were. There are *many*
distinctive landmarks in the vicinity of the Washington Monument.

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'.

[Dave Stadt]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Very well said,
> Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln had
> the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
> crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession. Numerous
> newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
> that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states
had
> threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
> Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
> either.
> Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all
of
> the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
> I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since 1861
..

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
very limited federal government and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now. Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy. The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
the bigger is better types.

[gatt]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in

> It really is unbelievable that they didn't realize where they were and
> what was going on around them for such a long period of time.

Seriously. I gotta know what was happening in the airplane.

"Um...this doesn't look like North Carolina. Steer for that big building
that looks like the capitol, across the river from the giant cemetery. What
do you suppose that thing that looks like the Washington Monument is? Oh,
look, that building looks just like the White House...
and that shopping mall looks JUST LIKE THE PENTAGON!"

....Oooooh. We must be getting close to the airshow. Look at all the F-16s!
Oh, whoops. Looks like they accidentally dropped some flares. Twice..."

--c

[gatt]

"Denny" > wrote in message

> Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
> lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
> feel safe...

So...refresh my memory. How many people were killed in this incident?

-c

[gatt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

> > We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> > well-defined reasons,
> >
> And what would those be?

Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Hmmm....might need to think about that for awhile.
-c

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jose wrote:
> > > We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear
> and
> > > well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.
> >
> > No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.
> >
>
> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.

That deserves a DUH.

> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.

Oh I see, the terrorist would fly up to the restricted area and turn around
because the sectional says you can't go there. Those are some darn well
behaved terrorist in my book.

> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.

A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

[gatt]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message news:4284c3ad$0

> So? There are terrorist groups all over the world wishing to carry out
> attacks on all sorts of people/governments.

Do you lock your doors at night?

Why?

[gatt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

> > 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> > such attacks.
>
> It happened once. Once.

More than once. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html

Remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House lawn in 1994. He
missed the WH.
The guy carrying the nuclear football was in the White House at the time.

-c

[gatt]

"Alan" > wrote in message

> Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among other things.

To be fair, he had constitutional justification...time of rebellion or
insurrection et al.

> Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
> faced with invaders.

Interesting analogy.

-c

[gatt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

> > I think the Secret Service showed considerable restraint.
> >
> Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
> been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
> as that.

Theoretical.

A plane crashed into the white house lawn once already. If it had
disintegrated in midair and showered down somewhere, it wouldn't necessarily
inflict any higher damage than a Cessna plowing into the front of the White
House or some open assembly of people.

-c

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Very well said,
> > Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln
had
> > the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
> > crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
Numerous
> > newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the thought
> > that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern states
> had
> > threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
> > Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it now
> > either.
> > Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
all
> of
> > the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
> Government.
> > I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
1861
> .
>
> Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
> very limited federal government

Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that the
trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG government
were the ones who were feeding at the trough.

> and others wanted a federal government even
> larger and more intrusive than what we have now.

Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).

> Don't forget also some of
> the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.

Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of of
the "limelight" by 1800.

Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.


> The end result was a compromise but
> the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
> the bigger is better types.
>
It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
"Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into the
deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.

[gatt]

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The plane was already 15 miles in a 30 mile zone when the F 16 took off
> and was only 3 miles out when intercepted. If this was a terrorist
> piloted airliner from Reagan National, takeing a northbound left turn
> instead of right. The WH or capitol would be toast.

The F-16s weren't the only line of defense, just the first. There are also
patriot missile batteries and other SAM installations.

It turns out the first line of defense got the job done, and didn't even
kill anybody. I'm not exactly clear what failed except for the Cessna
pilot's navigational skill and the politicians' nerve.

On the other hand, we have the benefit of hindsite. All the people in the
capitol knew is that there was a red alert and that a plane appeared to be
coming directly at them despite rather obvious airspace closures. They
wouldn't have necessarily known whether it was a Cessna or a 747.
Personally, if I thought a 747 might be aimed at my building and mere miles
out, I'd run like hell too. I wouldn't run downstairs...that's where the
fuel leaks and the oxygen burns.

-c

[Charles O'Rourke]

gatt wrote:
> Remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House lawn in 1994.
He
> missed the WH.
> The guy carrying the nuclear football was in the White House at the
time.

What I kind of wonder is, why was the guy with the nuclear football at
the White House if the president wasn't?

I guess it's just a quick run to the Blair House across the street
where President Clinton was staying, but..

Charles.
-N8385U

[Matt Barrow]

"Charles O'Rourke" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> gatt wrote:
> > Remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House lawn in 1994.
> He
> > missed the WH.
> > The guy carrying the nuclear football was in the White House at the
> time.
>
> What I kind of wonder is, why was the guy with the nuclear football at
> the White House if the president wasn't?

It's hard to maintain an erection with a guy holding a briefcase in the
corner...

> I guess it's just a quick run to the Blair House across the street
> where President Clinton was staying, but..

Or something like that.

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:Yb5he.2075

> > 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> > kind.
>
> A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn or
into the Pentagon?

-c

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:Yb5he.2075
>
> > > 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> > > kind.
> >
> > A baby buggy is just as good a tool.
>
> Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn or
> into the Pentagon?
>
> -c

They have been used in other countries and in an area that is off limits to
motor vehicles they would be a very efficient means of delivery.

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
> Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.

A correlation doesn't prove reason.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
>> well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it.
>
> No, these reasons are neither good, nor clear, nor well defined.

To be fair, what they really weren't are "reasons". They are "clear" and
"well-defined". But a "reason" ought to have some "reasoning" behind it.
These don't.

[W P Dixon]

Andrew,
You raise a very interesting question, and it has a very simple answer. No
matter what law was passed etc., there would never be "perfect" internal
security. But we would have alot less problems if our federal Gov. would
enforce immigration laws and protect our borders. Don't stop immigration
mind you but enforce rules already in place. How many of the 911 highjackers
would not have even been in this country if the Feds actually went and got
them and sent them back to from where they came?
So instead of enforcing laws that would have already been protecting us
just as much as anything else they can come up with, we get the Patriot Act
that gives the gov. way to much power. And we know they say "we are not
using this against Americans". Do you believe that? And if it's true, how
long will it be before some corrupt type does use it against Americans? Now
if the Patriot Act was written and it had "This law does not pertain to US
citizens". Then I could back it...maybe.
But our main concern should be , close the border to illegals, send home
everyone we catch. If we had done that before we would surely be alot better
off today. If Yabba Dabba Do can not get into this country, he can not blow
anything up in it. And yes, then we would have to deal with those who live
here legally and would do us harm. But that would be alot easier without
them having the ability to send recruits from abroad for reinforcements.
Oh and my home security is a loaded 9mm and various others! ;) No alarms
needed here;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message >
> Similarly, we could easily achieve perfect internal security in this
> country. At what price, however?
>
> - Andrew
>

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> > 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> > such attacks.
>
> Oh I see, the terrorist would fly up to the restricted area and turn
around
> because the sectional says you can't go there. Those are some darn
well
> behaved terrorist in my book.

Let's assume the prohibited zone was the old 3-mile ring. Now, a plane
has just breached the outside edge of the ring. In 2 minutes it will be
on top of the Capitol building. No time to send F-16s up to put on a
fireworks show; all you can do now is fire a missile. And if it's a
Learjet, you have more like 30 seconds.

So, instead of having a line in the sky 30 miles out that you *might*
get shot for crossing, you have a line 3 miles out that you
*definitely* get shot for crossing. How does this improve the
situation?

> > 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of
some
> > kind.
>
> A baby buggy is just as good a tool.

And if you took your baby buggy and ran at full speed towards the gates
of the White House, you would be dealt with equally roughly.

-cwk.

[W P Dixon]

Dave,
Very true, Jefferson and Hamilton and their followers had conflicting
views. Even the smaller offshoots...But one thing that they could do was
meet on middle ground, something our two parties don't seem to do much
anymore. I am a history nut! I didn't want to write a history lesson , but
thanks for filling in some for me;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> .
>
> Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
> very limited federal government and others wanted a federal government
> even
> larger and more intrusive than what we have now. Don't forget also some
> of
> the founding fathers wanted a monarchy. The end result was a compromise
> but
> the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
> the bigger is better types.
>
>
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Alright Matt!!,
I am impressed with the history buffs in the newsgroup! I thank you sir
for taking mine and Dave's history lesson even further....

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Very well said,
>> > Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see. Lincoln
> had
>> > the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with a
>> > crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
> Numerous
>> > newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the
>> > thought
>> > that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern
>> > states
>> had
>> > threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
>> > Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it
>> > now
>> > either.
>> > Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
> all
>> of
>> > the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
>> Government.
>> > I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
> 1861
>> .
>>
>> Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted a
>> very limited federal government
>
> Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that the
> trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG
> government
> were the ones who were feeding at the trough.
>
>> and others wanted a federal government even
>> larger and more intrusive than what we have now.
>
> Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).
>
>> Don't forget also some of
>> the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.
>
> Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of of
> the "limelight" by 1800.
>
> Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
> been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.
>
>
>> The end result was a compromise but
>> the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground to
>> the bigger is better types.
>>
> It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
> "Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into
> the
> deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.
>
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time was
Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn nation.
You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against another.
Well, you can if you went to public schools! ;) History as they say is
written by the victor.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan" > wrote in message
>
>> Lincoln suspended habeas corpus among other things.
>
> To be fair, he had constitutional justification...time of rebellion or
> insurrection et al.
>
>> Even the human body's immune system over reacts when
>> faced with invaders.
>
> Interesting analogy.
>
> -c
>
>

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> >
> > Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?
>
> I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are
significant
> statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well

> defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.
>
<SNIP>
> The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and

> every driver knows it.
>
> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.
> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.
> 3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.
>
> Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

None, and DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
Capitol buildings significantly.

Of course there is a pragmatic/cost-benefit analysis going on with
anything. You could ban GA inside the ADIZ and the economic effects
would still be minor compared to what would happen if you stopped
allowing large trucks inside DC. While I agree that the freedom to fly
ought to be treated as an absolute, the reality on the ground is that
we are a Special Interest Group that the broader public would sell up
the river in a split second. Like it or not we've got to keep our noses
clean.

-cwk.

[Jose]

> So, instead of having a line in the sky 30 miles out that you *might*
> get shot for crossing, you have a line 3 miles out that you
> *definitely* get shot for crossing. How does this improve the
> situation?

You have about eighty five thousand more cubic miles in which you can
fly unencumbered.

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

[Jose]

> DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
> Capitol buildings significantly.

I would also restrict flight through the White House and the Capitol
buildings.

OTOH DC has -not- restricted traffic flow in a thirty mile ring around
the Capitol the way it has restricted flight.

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

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

> > I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
> > Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.
>
> A correlation doesn't prove reason.

People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
airspace is closed, any legitimate pilot in America knows the airspace is
closed, it's damned difficult to get lost in the DC area and fighters were
scrambled to either deter or destroy the aircraft.

As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let pilots
run amok over Washington DC.

-c

[Jose]

> the airspace is
> closed, [...] As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
pilots
> run amok over Washington DC.

Why is this as it should be?

And what particular reason is there at this point to let pilots run amok
over Chicago? Or anywhere else?

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

[Andrew Gideon]

W P Dixon wrote:

> So instead of enforcing laws that would have already been protecting
> us
> just as much as anything else they can come up with, we get the Patriot
> Act that gives the gov. way to much power.

I do agree with both sides of this assertion: enforcement is too lax, and
the response has been an overreaction in the creation of new law. In a
way, that's natural. If one ignores the poor enforcement but observes just
the effect of the current laws, I can see how one would deduce the need for
more strict laws.

And since the parties doing the above reasoning are responsible for the
enforcement, I'm sure they presume perfect enforcement.

> And we know they say "we are
> not using this against Americans". Do you believe that?

Since anyone can be labeled and "illegal combatent", obviously not.

> And if it's true,
> how long will it be before some corrupt type does use it against
> Americans?

What's so amazing is how the current administration and senate (and probably
the house too, but I haven't an example of this) presume that they'll be in
charge forever. If I knew that it could be used against me after some
future election, I'd never trash filibustering. But current officials
either believe they'll be in charge forever or don't care what happens
after they leave.

> Oh and my home security is a loaded 9mm and various others! ;) No
> alarms
> needed here;)

Tsk. That's actor; not sensor.

- Andrew

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:J96he.2087

> > Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn
or
> > into the Pentagon?

> They have been used in other countries and in an area that is off limits
to
> motor vehicles they would be a very efficient means of delivery.

They should clearly restrict all access to Washington DC then. American
government is more important than tourism.

-c

[gatt]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message news:hV6he.42

> Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time
was
> Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn
nation.
> You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against another.
> Well, you can if you went to public schools! ;)

LOL. "Seceded." *ahem*

I've been researching and writing the civil war for something like ten years
now. Can't find the part of the Constitution where it says that secession
is legal. Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, however, states
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Personally, let's just say my ancestors came from Mississippi and Louisiana
and served on the side that declared it their legal right to secede. But if
Lincoln determined the impending outbreak of civil war to be a case of
rebellion or invasion, he may have suspended it in the interest of public
safety.

-c

[gatt]

> wrote in message

> Let's assume the prohibited zone was the old 3-mile ring. Now, a plane
> has just breached the outside edge of the ring. In 2 minutes it will be
> on top of the Capitol building.

Yep. There are surface to air missiles available in that situation. But
it's a patently bad idea to fire a SAM over a city if, say, F-16s are better
able to assess the target.

Other than the government freakout and the bumbling idiocy of the pilot,
everything worked out just fine.

-c

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

> To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of DC
> were blockaded, [...]
>
Having driven many of those highways just last weekend, I consider them to
sufficiently blockaded now, albeit with "normal" DC traffic... ;-)

> and one needed prior authorization to enter or leave
> the DC area - perhaps mediated by EZ-Pass and a RFID tag on driver
> licenses (actually, not very farfetched at all). Since rental vans
> were used for prior attacks, they are allowed to travel freely (so
> long as they belong to one of the larger rental companies). However,
> every subcompact car is suspect, since it can carry a bomb in the
> trunk.
>
Great analogy. I don't understand why people just don't get the
significantly greater threat that ground-based vehicles pose to our
"security". It's idiotic to be concerned about long-shots such as GA when
there is absolutely nothing done to protect against far greater and more
practical means of doing damage.

Neil

[KayInPA]

gatt wrote:
> American government is more important than tourism.

Apparently, the people in American government agree.

"A handful of members of the congressional leadership complained that,
when they went downstairs, they had to merge with tourists, which made
it harder for them to get out of the building."

-Joe Johns, CNN congressional correspondent on Capitol Hill

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message news:fT7he.1712

> > the airspace is closed, [...] As it should be. There's no particular
reason at this point to < <let pilots run amok over Washington DC.
>
> Why is this as it should be?

There's a war going on. Precisely why there's no particular reason to let
illegal immigrants run amok into America.

Some of them are hostile.

> And what particular reason is there at this point to let pilots run amok
> over Chicago? Or anywhere else?

The most powerful government in the world--and the one that Americans
consider most important--is not in Chicago.

-c

[[email protected]]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Andrew,
> You raise a very interesting question, and it has a very simple
answer. No
> matter what law was passed etc., there would never be "perfect"
internal
> security. But we would have alot less problems if our federal Gov.
would
> enforce immigration laws and protect our borders. Don't stop
immigration
> mind you but enforce rules already in place. How many of the 911
highjackers
> would not have even been in this country if the Feds actually went
and got
> them and sent them back to from where they came?

I don't recall the precise numbers but I think about half of them were
here legally, mainly via student visa. So better border control would
have saved Trade 1 but not stopped it utterly. Still it's a good idea.
Mind you, if welfare was the great pivot issue Bill Clinton used to
triangulate the GOP in 1996, immigration is the one his wife is getting
ready to deploy. The GOP has moved far to the left of its base on this
issue and is creating a real opportunity for the Dems here. Watch and
learn.

-cwk.

[gatt]

"KayInPA" > wrote in message

> "A handful of members of the congressional leadership complained that,
> when they went downstairs, they had to merge with tourists, which made
> it harder for them to get out of the building."

I'm not defending the wholesale screeching panic that seemed to occur...at
least not from the government body. But if you were in a building and were
told simply that an airplane was heading at it, you'd most likely exit the
building as well.

At least, I would.

-c

[KayInPA]

gatt wrote:
> {snipped irrelevant part}
> if you were in a building and were told
> simply that an airplane was heading at it,
> you'd most likely exit the building as well.
>
> At least, I would.

Yes, but hopefully not with an pompous attitude towards others also
trying to exit the building.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> 1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
> domestic US.
> 2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
> such attacks.

target, yes. "preferred"? no

> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
> kind.

It's "possible" that a meteor might strike the DC area. People need to start
thinking about concepts like acceptable risk, likely or plausible attack methods.
Light aircraft is just about the dumbest way of delivering a "weapon of some
kind."

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dave Stadt]

Did we all pass teach?

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Alright Matt!!,
> I am impressed with the history buffs in the newsgroup! I thank you sir
> for taking mine and Dave's history lesson even further....
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >>
> >> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Very well said,
> >> > Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see.
Lincoln
> > had
> >> > the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with
a
> >> > crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
> > Numerous
> >> > newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the
> >> > thought
> >> > that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern
> >> > states
> >> had
> >> > threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
> >> > Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it
> >> > now
> >> > either.
> >> > Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
> > all
> >> of
> >> > the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
> >> Government.
> >> > I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
> > 1861
> >> .
> >>
> >> Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted
a
> >> very limited federal government
> >
> > Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that
the
> > trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG
> > government
> > were the ones who were feeding at the trough.
> >
> >> and others wanted a federal government even
> >> larger and more intrusive than what we have now.
> >
> > Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).
> >
> >> Don't forget also some of
> >> the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.
> >
> > Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of
of
> > the "limelight" by 1800.
> >
> > Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
> > been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.
> >
> >
> >> The end result was a compromise but
> >> the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground
to
> >> the bigger is better types.
> >>
> > It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
> > "Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into
> > the
> > deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.
> >
> >
> >
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
> > Capitol buildings significantly.
>
> I would also restrict flight through the White House and the Capitol
> buildings.

Prohibit politicians from the White House and Capitol and all is solved.
:->

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:J96he.2087
>
> > > Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn
> or
> > > into the Pentagon?
>
> > They have been used in other countries and in an area that is off limits
> to
> > motor vehicles they would be a very efficient means of delivery.
>
> They should clearly restrict all access to Washington DC then. American
> government is more important than tourism.
>
> -c

Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to the
economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
important than a politician.

[gatt]

"KayInPA" > wrote in message

> > if you were in a building and were told simply that an airplane was
heading at it,
> > you'd most likely exit the building as well.
> >
> > At least, I would.
>
> Yes, but hopefully not with an pompous attitude towards others also
> trying to exit the building.

You are absolutely correct. You'd think the heroes who are sending people
like my brother off to fight in Iraq would have slowed down to HELP the
tourists out of harm's way. Not complain that they got in the way.

Reminds me of a B-17 crash report I read once. The flight engineer was
knocked to the deck in the impact and the pilots ran right over the top of
him to escape the airplane. Somehow he found a polite way to describe being
walked over in the incident report.

-c

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:_g9he.2191

> Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to
the
> economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
> important than a politician.

LOL! Yeah, but now you're starting to make sense, and that's not a
supported feature of Washington DC.

-c

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:_g9he.2191
>
> > Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to
> the
> > economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
> > important than a politician.
>
> LOL! Yeah, but now you're starting to make sense, and that's not a
> supported feature of Washington DC.
>
> -c

Sorry!

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
> airspace is closed, any legitimate pilot in America knows the airspace is
> closed, it's damned difficult to get lost in the DC area and fighters were
> scrambled to either deter or destroy the aircraft.

So far, so good.

> As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
> pilots
> run amok over Washington DC.

Sorry, you lose there. Your claim is far from a foregone conclusion.

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

> > As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
> > pilots run amok over Washington DC.
>
> Sorry, you lose there. Your claim is far from a foregone conclusion.

Peter, there's a war going on.

Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
airplanes either.

-c

[Blueskies]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
>
> front-page news grabber screw-up does not guarantee certificate action.
>
> Marco
>


Actually, it is pretty amazing how little coverage this has had here in Michigan. You have to really dig to find
anything about it...

[Blueskies]

"gatt" > wrote in message ...
>
> People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
> airspace is closed,



Actually, it is a ADIZ. You can get clearance. Tough, but you can....

[Blueskies]

"gatt" > wrote in message ...
>
> Peter, there's a war going on.
>
> Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
> airplanes either.
>
> -c
>
>

No grenades (I think) but guns are OK....

As for the 'war' going on, 'fraid not....

[George Patterson]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Actually, it is pretty amazing how little coverage this has had here in Michigan. You have to really dig to find
> anything about it...

It may be just me, but I think that's encouraging.

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]

Jose wrote:
>
> OTOH DC has -not- restricted traffic flow in a thirty mile ring around
> the Capitol the way it has restricted flight.

Mileage is not as important as time. You can't drive a truck from the edge of
the ADIZ to the Capitol in a few minutes.

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]

gatt wrote:
>
> I've been researching and writing the civil war for something like ten years
> now. Can't find the part of the Constitution where it says that secession
> is legal.

If it doesn't say it's illegal, it's legal. Something about all rights not
specifically reserved to the Federal government are reserved to the people and
States.

After the war, the issue was raised to the chief justice of the Supreme Court --
they were preparing to try Jefferson Davis for treason. The justice opined that,
if they actually brought the case to trial, the court would find him not guilty,
since all the "treasons" occurred when he was president of a foreign country.

They turned him loose. With nightmares about the city of Charleston suing for
the cost of the shot and powder used to subdue Fort Sumpter, no doubt.

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'.

[W P Dixon]

Gatt,
I would highly advise you to do another 10 years of research. Remember all
the northern states that mentioned that term , and the Congressmen who spoke
of it often as a Constitutional right. I believe Webster sumed it up best
(paraphrasing) a union that can be enteres can be left. I do not remember
the exact quote off hand, but that was the heartbeat of it. Be happy to look
it up for you off the group if you care to learn. My library on the subject
can rival most public libraries. Would love to hear where your kin served!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message news:hV6he.42
>
>> Actually you are not being fair, states had secceded, which at that time
> was
>> Constitutional. What Lincoln did was make a war with a new soveriegn
> nation.
>> You can't really call it a rebellion if it is one country against
>> another.
>> Well, you can if you went to public schools! ;)
>
> LOL. "Seceded." *ahem*
>
> I've been researching and writing the civil war for something like ten
> years
> now. Can't find the part of the Constitution where it says that secession
> is legal. Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution, however,
> states
> "The privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
> when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
>
> Personally, let's just say my ancestors came from Mississippi and
> Louisiana
> and served on the side that declared it their legal right to secede. But
> if
> Lincoln determined the impending outbreak of civil war to be a case of
> rebellion or invasion, he may have suspended it in the interest of public
> safety.
>
> -c
>
>

[W P Dixon]

;) I think we are doing pretty well! In this day and age I find it
refreshing that some people actually know these things, and even more
impressed when I find someone willing to learn ! HAHA I could not believe
it, but someone had done a poll and over 50% of Americans did not know
George Washington was the Commanding General of the Continental Army. Can
you believe it? And if I understtod it correctly this wasn't just school age
children but just a poll of everyday Americans.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech



"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Did we all pass teach?
>

[Marco Leon]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why wouldn't they just drive up to their target? They'd attract a lot
> less attention.

I don't know of too many cars or trucks that can drive up to the front door
of the White House. If you haven't noticed, the security is pretty tight
around that building. Remember, media sensationalism is just as much part of
the way they operate as the actual destruction. A Cessna's tail sticking out
of a White House window will get as much media attention as a truck blowing
up a block down the road (which is about how close it will ever get).

>
> Tell you what? How about the government locking all of us in our houses,
> and not letting us out. That would solve the security problem. If they
> see anyone outside their house, they can just shoot them immediately. I
> realize that's an absurd example, but it makes the point.

Absurd examples don't make any points other than make it seem like you have
no perspective.


>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Andrew Gideon]

George Patterson wrote:

>
> Mileage is not as important as time. You can't drive a truck from the edge
> of the ADIZ to the Capitol in a few minutes.

Nor would one need to given the complete lack of scrutiny given to these
potential attack vehicles.

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Peter, there's a war going on.

Sort of.

> Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
> airplanes either.

What's that got to do with Americans' right to freely move about the
country?

While it is common for security measures to be implemented without regard to
whether they will actually accomplish anything, that doesn't make it right.

[Jose]

>>>the airspace is closed, [...] As it should be. There's no particular
>>> reason at this point to let pilots run amok over Washington DC.
>> Why is this as it should be?
> There's a war going on. Precisely why there's no particular reason to let
> illegal immigrants run amok into America.

I didn't realize that "pilots" was synonymous with "illegal immigrant".
I guess I'll have to get a new dictionary.

Single engine pilots are not the enemy. Religious zealots are the enemy.

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

[Jose]

> You can't drive a truck from the edge of the ADIZ to the Capitol in a few minutes.

You don't need to. Drive at any speed you want, you'll get to the
target. That's all that counts.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Gatt,

> Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
> thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.

And that has WHAT connection exactly to prohibiting GA traffic over
Washington?

>
> I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security

And prohibiting GA traffic tightens security in WHICH way, exactly?

I'm really looking forward to explanations.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gatt,

> to let pilots
> run amok over Washington DC.
>

They "ran amok"? As far as I know, they just flew. Man, all of us are
running amok all over the world regularly by your definition. It's my
favorite pastime, this "running amok". Jeeze!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>>By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>
>>As a wayward Cessna
>
>
> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate action
> taken against these two nimrods.
Huh? Where did you get that? The FAA is planning on revoking the
certificate of the PIC. The student had no legal standing during
the flight (and evidentally was the only reason they managed not
to get shot out of the air).

[Ron Natalie]

Sport Pilot wrote:
> The plane was already 15 miles in a 30 mile zone when the F 16 took off
> and was only 3 miles out when intercepted. If this was a terrorist
> piloted airliner from Reagan National, takeing a northbound left turn
> instead of right. The WH or capitol would be toast.
>
Yes, but the TSA/HSA/SS believe that they have put adequate security
precautions in for htat. National departing passengers are subject
to additional screening, and the pilots are specially trained to
get the hell away from DC if anything (passengers standing up,
etc...) occurs. We've had a bunch of diversions to IAD of
DCA flights since 9-11.

The GA flights in the FRZ reqiure that the pilots get special security
checks and there are special procedures. When security level goes to
orange, this also incoming flights first to an outlying airport to
check the passengers and "cargo". Similar restrictions on depatures
are in effect.

[Matt Whiting]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> John Gaquin wrote:
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>>> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>>
>>> As a wayward Cessna
>>
>>
>>
>> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
>> action taken against these two nimrods.
>
> Huh? Where did you get that? The FAA is planning on revoking the
> certificate of the PIC. The student had no legal standing during
> the flight (and evidentally was the only reason they managed not
> to get shot out of the air).

Yes, I heard that he's losing his certificate after 35 years of flying.
That is a shame, but probably justified in this case. The article
said he got lost, but even so, how hard would it be to know that you
need to fly west, not east when in that area?


Matt

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:19:37 -0700, gatt wrote:

>> Yes, but hopefully not with an pompous attitude towards others also
>> trying to exit the building.
>
>You are absolutely correct. You'd think the heroes who are sending people
>like my brother off to fight in Iraq would have slowed down to HELP the
>tourists out of harm's way. Not complain that they got in the way.

if those wackos (politicans) feel that they are so important and need
protection: bring them down in a submarine or something. They shouldn't be
allowed to interrupt everyday life (they already interrupt life with their
decisions).
this thread is part of the job description. if you can't stand it don't
take this job.

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 14:04:44 -0700, gatt wrote:

>> Why is this as it should be?
>
>There's a war going on.


*hihi*

> Precisely why there's no particular reason to let
>illegal immigrants run amok into America.
>

illegal immigrants are not really welcome. nowehere.

>Some of them are hostile.
>

yes, but this applies to all groups. _some_ Americans are hostile, _some_
Iraquis are hostil, ... you get the picture.

>> And what particular reason is there at this point to let pilots run amok
>> over Chicago? Or anywhere else?
>
>The most powerful government in the world

yes, really sad that we let this happen.

>--and the one that Americans
>consider most important--is not in Chicago.
>

every nation sees his government as the most important one. but the
politicans are only human beeings. you make little gods out of your
presidents. I never understood that.

>-c

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:32:45 -0700, gatt wrote:

>Peter, there's a war going on.
>

yeah, and you haven't started it, you are only defending yourselves, etc.
etc. yaddayadda.

>Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
>airplanes either.

but it would help the government to have a better control if there would be
a gun regulation. you don't have something to hide, have you? no? so you
can register your guns with your government .. help your government fight
terrorism. you want to help your government fighting terrorism, won't you?

>-c

#m, opening Pandoras box. :-)

--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2005 16:32:45 -0700, gatt wrote:
>
>
>>Peter, there's a war going on.
>>
>
>
> yeah, and you haven't started it, you are only defending yourselves, etc.
> etc. yaddayadda.
>
>
>>Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
>>airplanes either.
>
>
> but it would help the government to have a better control if there would be
> a gun regulation. you don't have something to hide, have you? no? so you
> can register your guns with your government .. help your government fight
> terrorism. you want to help your government fighting terrorism, won't you?

Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your
government and hence the second amendment. The writers of the
constitution were well aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your government
> and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution were well
> aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.

People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But do you
(or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are permitted as
US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own
government?

I know I don't. If that was the intent, the protection intended has long
been voided.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Jose > posted:
>
> > To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of
DC
> > were blockaded, [...]
> >
<SNIP>
>
> Great analogy. I don't understand why people just don't get the
> significantly greater threat that ground-based vehicles pose to our
> "security". It's idiotic to be concerned about long-shots such as GA
when
> there is absolutely nothing done to protect against far greater and
more
> practical means of doing damage.

I'm calling BS on this. Do you *know* nothing else is being done?

You can't drive a good-sized truck right up next to the Capitol or WH.
A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
target to do structural damage.

So you say, fine, we just use a bigger bomb. A tractor trailer can
carry 40 tons so let's load up. Well, that's a lot of explosive to get
together. Try buying large quantities of nitrate fertilizer lately? The
gov't sure as hell is monitoring the trade in explosive precursors
since the OK City bombing. Likewise, I strongly suspect there is
monitoring of truck rentals going on, but I can't say that for sure.

Where I would agree with the ADIZ critics is on productivity/resource
grounds. It is a thousand times more likely that terrorists would get
caught when buying or messing around with the airplane than when they
bust the ADIZ. It's not clear to me that maintaining the ADIZ is
actively preventing them from doing these other things, so it's not an
either-or decision.

-cwk.

[Jose]

> A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
> target to do structural damage.

So, put a missle on the truck. That takes care of the last hundred yards.

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

[Mike W.]

So, they are more important than any of the rest of us, special rules for
'special' people.

Remember a couple of years ago, when the Federal Government was so broke
that it shut down? Remember how badly that interrupted everybody's lives? Me
either.

Let's all get one thing straight, their job as political leaders is supposed
to be to SERVE US, not the other way around. If they are so paranoid that
someone or something is out to get them, they either need to change their
ways or find a new career.

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Mike

> Well, you see, a long time ago, on September 11, 2001, some nice people
> thought it might be fun to fly an airplane into the Pentagon.
>
> I wonder if there's a correlation between tightened security around
> Washington DC and the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon.
>
> Hmmm....might need to think about that for awhile.
> -c
>
>

[Mike W.]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> > Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades
on
> > airplanes either.
>
> What's that got to do with Americans' right to freely move about the
> country?

Are you kidding me? What they can't effectively control, they just pass
legislation against. So everybody pays a penalty by having their individual
freedoms taken away. Except, of course, those who don't care to play by the
rules.

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> Are you kidding me? What they can't effectively control, they just pass
> legislation against. So everybody pays a penalty by having their
> individual
> freedoms taken away. Except, of course, those who don't care to play by
> the
> rules.

You haven't explained how the 2nd Amendment along with the exception
disallowing guns and grenades on airplanes (and technically, those are only
disallowed on commercial flights) has anything to do with Americans' rights
to freely move about the country (and in particular, justifying restricting
that right).

Why would I be kidding you?

Pete

[Mike W.]

So you are saying that they would not have shot it down, ever? Of course,
they knew pretty early on that it was of little threat, so the fighters were
not sent up until fairly late. But, what would the collateral damage be from
shooting down a Beech 1900 or a 737? Where would they choose to shoot it
down? It's gonna end up in somebody's yard.

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

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because the "collateral damage" of shooting the plane down would have
> been way higher than any damage inflicted by the plane itself. Simple
> as that.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your government
>>and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution were well
>>aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.
>
>
> People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But do you
> (or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are permitted as
> US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own
> government?

Yes, people debate the intent now, but that is only because they are
trying to rewrite history. There is plenty of contemporaneous writings
in the Federalist papers and other sources that clearly support the
clear intent of the second amendment. Only those trying to rewrite
history debate the intent today.

And, yes, common small arms and rudimentary weapons can have a very
effective impact. Look at Vietnam, Irag, etc.


Matt

[Mike W.]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> You haven't explained how the 2nd Amendment along with the exception
> disallowing guns and grenades on airplanes (and technically, those are
only
> disallowed on commercial flights) has anything to do with Americans'
rights
> to freely move about the country (and in particular, justifying
restricting
> that right).
> Pete
>
I guess I misread the direction of your post.

All amendments have exceptions to them, not just the second. In your
example, it is probably for the best.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this TSA 'national
security' crap, it is not protecting the nation at all, just the idiots that
are running it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike W." > wrote in message
...
> I guess I misread the direction of your post.

I think so.

> [...]
> I think the thing that bothers me the most about all of this TSA 'national
> security' crap, it is not protecting the nation at all, just the idiots
> that
> are running it.

I certainly agree, if by "protect" you mean "ensure continuous employment".

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, people debate the intent now [...]

My point in mentioning that was to attempt to discourage someone from
latching onto that question and diverting the real issue in my post.
Apparently, I was unsuccessful.

> And, yes, common small arms and rudimentary weapons can have a very
> effective impact. Look at Vietnam, Irag, etc.

Not really sure what you mean. The folks in Vietnam were NOT limited to
"common small arms and rudimentary weapons" (I'd hardly call a SAM site a
"rudimentary weapon", for example). In Iraq, the folks causing trouble
aren't coming close to taking over the country, nor will they ever.

Try again?

Pete

[george]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sure, but someday you may have to defend yourself against your
government
> > and hence the second amendment. The writers of the constitution
were well
> > aware of this potential and thus they planned for it.
>
> People can (and do) debate the intent behind the 2nd amendment. But
do you
> (or anyone else) seriously think that the kinds of arms we are
permitted as
> US citizens provide ANY serious potential for defense against our own

> government?
>
> I know I don't. If that was the intent, the protection intended has
long
> been voided.
>
If a Cessna 152 scares the **** out of them just turn up with a 747 and
they won't stop running until they get to Canada.....

[Cecil Chapman]

> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it

REALLY,,, seriously Jay. Do you really take the time to think about your
beliefs? Scenario: (God forbid!) Commercial Jumbo jet off from the airport
(look at a TAC of that area and see how close it is to the 'seat of
government') - capable of at least a few hundred knots and loaded with jet
fuel, momentum and sheer mass. Let's say that fighters are miraculously
scrambled soon enough and they shoot down the hijacked plane before it
reaches the capitol; a lethal rain of metal, jet fuel, and unfortunate
occupants on the thousands of people who live below (which would be over
one of the most densely populated urban areas in our country).

So, thousands of innocents will be sacrificed - families, children, mothers
and more? Sounds like a no-win scenario to me..sounds like a plan made out
of panic and paranoia.

I can't be the only one who winced with embarrassment and disgust to see the
video footage of all our elected leaders running like bloated, fat chickens
FROM A CESSNA 150 of all things! How those wicked terrorist groups must be
laughing heartily at us now. They really won - they succeeded in creating
paranoia and terror in their victim - one of the goals of terrorism!
It was just sickening, having our government's yellowed-belly showing to all
the world on their TV's.

Heck, look at Iraq right now,,, despite our presence we can't even begin to
stop the daily car bombings that are going on there. And our poor
recruits,,, 'making it' to the day their service is supposed to end and then
repeatedly being told that it is being extended (bad move for morale). At
least this is the last presidential term for G.W. Being grateful for small
favors!


Cecil

[Cecil Chapman]

> And prohibiting GA traffic tightens security in WHICH way, exactly?
>
> I'm really looking forward to explanations.

There probably isn't any..... Was it Emerson (I think?) who said that "A
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

[Cecil Chapman]

> Do you lock your doors at night?
>
> Why?

Probably because he knows there are people out there like you, who vote
<yikes! really scary!> <<<GRIN>>>

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Jose > posted:
>>
>>> To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of
>>> DC were blockaded, [...]
>>>
> <SNIP>
>>
>> Great analogy. I don't understand why people just don't get the
>> significantly greater threat that ground-based vehicles pose to our
>> "security". It's idiotic to be concerned about long-shots such as GA
>> when there is absolutely nothing done to protect against far greater
>> and more practical means of doing damage.
>
> I'm calling BS on this. Do you *know* nothing else is being done?
>
Because insignificant efforts are irrelevant. There is nothing stopping
traffic from travelling through downtown D.C.

> You can't drive a good-sized truck right up next to the Capitol or WH.
> A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
> target to do structural damage.
>
Who cares about the Capitol or WH, besides the cowards that hang out
there? There are a lot of real people in D.C., too.

> The gov't sure as hell is monitoring the trade in explosive precursors
> since the OK City bombing. Likewise, I strongly suspect there is
> monitoring of truck rentals going on, but I can't say that for sure.
>
Why not rent a truck and find out? UHaul and Ryder are still doing a brisk
business, AFAICT.

Neil

[John Gaquin]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message news:4285f68b$0$28822

> Huh? Where did you get that?

I heard a news report a couple of days ago to the effect that the government
planned to take no action against the pair. Obviously erroneous.

[John Gaquin]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:a2nhe.2413

> said he got lost, but even so, how hard would it be to know that you need
> to fly west, not east when in that area?

More to the point, going from PA to NC, how hard is it to know that the DC
Metro area lies across your path? ....and that it just might be an area to
avoid? Even if he did get lost initially, how hard is it to recognize DC
and stay the hell away? After many years, I've concluded that the single
greatest weakness in both cars and small airplanes is the simple inability
of certain people to just pay attention to what the hell is going on.

[Mike W.]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I heard a news report a couple of days ago to the effect that the
government
> planned to take no action against the pair. Obviously erroneous.
>
>
Probably referring to TSA, FBI, Secret Service etc. FAA will take action in
the next few days, I am sure.

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

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>>
>>************************************************** *****************************
>>Now they are willing to kill people who get lost and cross invisible
>>lines in the sky so that the powerful and the politically connected can
>>feel safe... Will they next start shooting our children because they
>>ride their bikes across an invisible line on the ground?
>
>
> Denny, normally I'm right with you and your thoughts -- but this is an
> absurd comparison.
>
> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
> well-defined reasons, and every certificated pilot knows it. To compare
> this situation to what the Nazis did is to trivialize the death of millions.
Jay,
You missed the point. If you don't stand up and defend all just causes
then there will be no just causes left to defend. Also, what is the
"clear and well-defined reason" for the FRZ. I got to talk to the F-16
pilots a few years ago and they aren't concerned about "you little guys"
because they knew "you can do anything anyway". The FRZ is window
dressing to make citizen feel safe. It does nothing.

[Grumman-581]

"gatt" wrote in message ...
> Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
> airplanes either.

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment has been slowly eroded by all the ****in'
leftists... They can't quite understand that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means
EXACTLY that... There's no EXCEPT WHEN CONVENIENT" clause to it...

[Grumman-581]

"EastWing" wrote in message
t...
> Collateral damage.

And considering the liberal cesspool that is DC, it would be ACCEPTABLE
collateral damages...

[Grumman-581]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
om...
> What goes up must come down. Somewhere.

The technical term for that is, "GRAVITY SUCKS"...

[Grumman-581]

"W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
> Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having all of
> the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.

Yep, Lincoln proved that the concept of States Rights was just a fiction...
All in all considered, HE is the one who started the War of Northern
Aggression...

[Jay Honeck]

>> 3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
>> kind.
>
> So are every car, van, SUV and truck driving around in DC. And most of
> them can carry a lot more explosive payload than the overwhelming majority
> of GA aircraft.

This argument sounds amazingly like the Army/Navy brass, back in the 1920s,
when they were trying to pooh-pooh Billy Mitchell's theory that an aircraft
could sink battleships, which, at the time, were thought to be impregnable
from the air.

Obviously, history teaches us that aircraft turned out to be the ultimate
battlefield weapons, and control of the air is now considered essential to
any battle.

Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from Ryder trucks,
but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled with
anthrax and C-4.

THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues otherwise is
only fooling themselves.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from Ryder trucks,
> but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled with
> anthrax and C-4.
>
> THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues otherwise is
> only fooling themselves.

Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone around
DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.

The price of freedom is... well... freedom.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues otherwise is
> only fooling themselves.
>

Oh! If you say so, sir!

Nope, you got it wrong. With that line of reasoning, you'd be living in a
dictatorship real quick.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
>

I love it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sport Pilot]

Jose wrote:
> > Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from
Ryder trucks,
> > but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled
with
> > anthrax and C-4.
> >
> > THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues
otherwise is
> > only fooling themselves.
>
> Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone
around
> DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.
>
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from
Ryder trucks,
> > but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled
with
> > anthrax and C-4.
> >
> > THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues
otherwise is
> > only fooling themselves.
>
> Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone
around
> DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.

Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
prohibition.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
> airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
> allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
to a hijacking.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Sport Pilot]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
> > airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
> > allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.
>
> Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
> where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
> succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
> violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap
approach
> to a hijacking.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


All they have to do is get a pilot trained and working for an airliner!
Sounds silly but they are just that patient! As for as the
passengers, they won't know a thing till they see the Washington
monument go by the wing, then it will be too late!

[Martin Hotze]

On 16 May 2005 13:40:21 -0700, Sport Pilot wrote:

>All they have to do is get a pilot trained and working for an airliner!

heck. they have the money for their own airline.
operate some years .. build up trust. then, one day there will be some
jumbos heading to their targets on the same time ... this isn't really a
big deal. maybe they already operate their airline.

and it would be an even better idea to attack littletown in nowhere, too.
because then _nobody_ will feel safe any longer at any place. shock and
awe, you know.

#m

--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

[Kev]

> Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land
> targets from Ryder trucks,
> but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee
> Six filled with anthrax and C-4.

Which is why it's so silly that they had people run OUT into the
streets when the Cessna approached. That's fine for the last attack
style (huge airliner hitting buildings), but a very poor idea for small
planes. In the latter case, going to the basement or inner rooms
and/or closing windows might be smarter. And less disruptive as well.

Kev

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from
>
> Ryder trucks,
>
>>>but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled
>
> with
>
>>>anthrax and C-4.
>>>
>>>THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues
>
> otherwise is
>
>>>only fooling themselves.
>>
>>Following that line of reasoning, there should be a no-fly zone
>
> around
>
>>DC, and a huge ADIZ around every major city in the country.
>
>
> Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
> America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
> and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

Well, there probably are more pilots who would like to see Daley out of
power than would like to see Bush out of power, so Daley's concern may
be real. :-)

Matt

[Blueskies]

"Kev" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land
>> targets from Ryder trucks,
>> but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee
>> Six filled with anthrax and C-4.
>
> Which is why it's so silly that they had people run OUT into the
> streets when the Cessna approached. That's fine for the last attack
> style (huge airliner hitting buildings), but a very poor idea for small
> planes. In the latter case, going to the basement or inner rooms
> and/or closing windows might be smarter. And less disruptive as well.
>
> Kev
>

But you would have missed all the photo ops!

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
> > airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
> > allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.
>
> Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
> where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
> succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.

Come on Jay, you can't really believe that. There are so many holes in the
window dressing security you can drive a Ryder through them.

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
> America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
> and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

The greatness and longevity of our country is in the CONCEPTS embodied by
our Constitution, not in the particular people who are PRESENTLY holding
particular offices, or a bunch of historic buildings. Our country would
survive even if DC was attacked.

> As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
> an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
> prohibition.

I suspect that if an ADIZ/FRZ was permenantly plopped on top of Iowa City,
you'd be singing a different tune.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Margy]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
>>>kind.
>>
>>So are every car, van, SUV and truck driving around in DC. And most of
>>them can carry a lot more explosive payload than the overwhelming majority
>>of GA aircraft.
>
>
> This argument sounds amazingly like the Army/Navy brass, back in the 1920s,
> when they were trying to pooh-pooh Billy Mitchell's theory that an aircraft
> could sink battleships, which, at the time, were thought to be impregnable
> from the air.
>
> Obviously, history teaches us that aircraft turned out to be the ultimate
> battlefield weapons, and control of the air is now considered essential to
> any battle.
>
> Bottom line: It's relatively easy to secure land targets from Ryder trucks,
> but it's very difficult to secure them from a Cherokee Six filled with
> anthrax and C-4.
>
> THAT is why we have an ADIZ over D.C., and anyone who argues otherwise is
> only fooling themselves.
Jay, Jay, Jay, I love you, but... What good does the ADIZ do? Don't you
think a terrorist knows how to file a flight plan?

[Ted]

Jay Honeck wrote in message ...
>Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>
>Pentagon officials sought to play down the incident, saying the small plane
>was not seen as a serious threat and did not come close to being shot down.
>
>"The quantity of explosives that you can pack in a little Cessna is not the
>quantity of explosives you see placed in these big truck bombs," Jenkins
>said. "In terms of explosives, it probably could not do that much damage."
>

They could probably see the two adults sitting in that Cessna 150 as if flew
merrily along into the restricted zone.
I haven't done a weight and balance calculation on a Cessna 150 in a couple
of decades. How much cargo weight remains after putting two adults in the
front seats? is it 6 or 8 pounds?? That wouldn't allow for a very large
bomb. I can see why they decided that the plane wasn't much of a threat.

[Jose]

> Chicago's King Daley's assertions notwithstanding, no other city in
> America has the concentration of power that presents such an obvious
> and inviting target for (another) terrorist attack.

Oh, I disagree very strongly with that. DC is mainly a bunch of
government workers who produce little more than TFRs. New York is the
financial capitol of the world, let alone the United States. New Jersey
probably has more noxious chemicals in one place than anywhere else in
the country. Drop a 747 on MIT (near Boston) and you'll do more damage
to our scientific and engineering leadership than obliterating =all= of
our illustrious capitol.

And don't forget the terror potential of wiping out a random, small town
in Iowa. What small town would feel safe after that?

> As with so many things in a democracy, the ADIZ currently in place is
> an imperfect compromise between absolute freedom, and absolute
> prohibition.

"imperfect" is right. It is very expensive in terms of freedom, and
gives little return in terms of safety.

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

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.

Great! That's going in my sayings file.

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'.

[Bob Moore]

"Ted" wrote
> I haven't done a weight and balance calculation on a Cessna 150 in a
> couple of decades. How much cargo weight remains after putting two
> adults in the front seats? is it 6 or 8 pounds?? That wouldn't allow
> for a very large bomb. I can see why they decided that the plane
> wasn't much of a threat.

The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal limit,
not a physical limit. It is estabilished by the FAA as the maximum
weight that will permit a go-around at the maximum flap setting and
has nothing to do with the maximum weight that the airplane will carry
for takeoff and cruise. In fact, for the C-172, by restricting the
maximum flap setting to 30 degrees instead of 40 degrees, the maximum
Takeoff Gross Weight was raised by 100#.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

[Dave Stadt]

"Ted" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Jay Honeck wrote in message ...
> >Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
> >By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
> >
> >Pentagon officials sought to play down the incident, saying the small
plane
> >was not seen as a serious threat and did not come close to being shot
down.
> >
> >"The quantity of explosives that you can pack in a little Cessna is not
the
> >quantity of explosives you see placed in these big truck bombs," Jenkins
> >said. "In terms of explosives, it probably could not do that much
damage."
> >
>
> They could probably see the two adults sitting in that Cessna 150 as if
flew
> merrily along into the restricted zone.
> I haven't done a weight and balance calculation on a Cessna 150 in a
couple
> of decades. How much cargo weight remains after putting two adults in the
> front seats? is it 6 or 8 pounds?? That wouldn't allow for a very large
> bomb. I can see why they decided that the plane wasn't much of a threat.


A 150 will fly hundreds of pounds overgross. I would guess 500 pounds over
gross is doable.

[George Patterson]

Ted wrote:
>
> I haven't done a weight and balance calculation on a Cessna 150 in a couple
> of decades.

Neither have I, but I can remember a few items. I weighed 150 pounds back then
and had about 10 pounds worth of flight kit. If I filled the tanks, I could
carry me, the flight kit, and about 180 pounds. That's if I wanted to stay at or
below max gross.

As I recall, however, one of the posters on this group managed to get a 150
airborne at least 200 pounds over max gross (and complained about the lousy
climb rate). If you've got enough runway, that 150 will easily carry two people
and the Davy Crockett round that's been mentioned.

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'.

[John Lakesford]

I bet you will or have done something just as stupid in an airplane.

Give these guys a break. The weren't terrorists, I don't care if they did
violate airspace.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
>> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>
>> As a wayward Cessna
>
> What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate
> action taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right
> into probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world,
> but, according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this
> errant course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing
> paths and ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going
> on? Just how stupid do you have to be?
>

[John Lakesford]

I agree.

And Honeck (according to his address) flies outta Iowa City, IA and not DC.
I fly out of the middle of nowhere and can't imagine what it is like flying
around the nations capitol.

So I will give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They screwed up, and so
have I.

I can only guess that Honeck and others here never have and never will.

I only wish I, and the rest of us, were as good as you.


"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> We have restricted areas over our seat of government for very clear and
>> well-defined reasons, <snip>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No we don't.
>
>
>
>
> --
> __!__
> Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
> http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
> http://www.oceancityairport.com
> http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[John Lakesford]

Aptly put. Too bad most of the real "idiots" (and not the ones who got lost
over DC) on this board won't understand.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>the airspace is closed, [...] As it should be. There's no particular
>>>> reason at this point to let pilots run amok over Washington DC.
>>> Why is this as it should be?
>> There's a war going on. Precisely why there's no particular reason to let
>> illegal immigrants run amok into America.
>
> I didn't realize that "pilots" was synonymous with "illegal immigrant". I
> guess I'll have to get a new dictionary.
>
> Single engine pilots are not the enemy. Religious zealots are the enemy.
>
> Jose
> --
> Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Lakesford]

What are you smoking?

The ramp people working for these "secure" airlines have again and again
shown to be the weak link. The TSA/FAA/et.al. haven't shown that hi-jackings
aren't still possible, only tougher to accomplish.

There is no real security on these big airliners.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
>> airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
>> allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.
>
> Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
> where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
> succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
> violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
> to a hijacking.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Roger]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:25:20 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Ted wrote:
>>
>> I haven't done a weight and balance calculation on a Cessna 150 in a couple
>> of decades.
>
>Neither have I, but I can remember a few items. I weighed 150 pounds back then
>and had about 10 pounds worth of flight kit. If I filled the tanks, I could
>carry me, the flight kit, and about 180 pounds. That's if I wanted to stay at or
>below max gross.
>
>As I recall, however, one of the posters on this group managed to get a 150
>airborne at least 200 pounds over max gross (and complained about the lousy
>climb rate). If you've got enough runway, that 150 will easily carry two people
>and the Davy Crockett round that's been mentioned.
>
>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'.

Nah... It just means you are from farther South than souther Michigan.
(unless you have a *close* friend along.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
> where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
> succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.
>
> Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
> violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
> to a hijacking.
>

Sorry, but me thinks you live in a dream world. The "security" is window
dressing, nothing else. It looks good to voters. That's it.

When have you last flown commercially?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Natalie]

>
> The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal limit,
> not a physical limit.

The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of payload
SPACE probably before you hit that...

You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before you
get to the structural limits.

[Sport Pilot]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> > The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal
limit,
> > not a physical limit.
>
> The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of payload
> SPACE probably before you hit that...
>
> You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before you
> get to the structural limits.


On a cool day a long runway and some patience the physical limit is
much higher. Don't know how much but I wouldn't be suprised if it
could be double on a winter day. Add a 150 or even a 180HP engine and
the physical limit is huge.

[Morgans]

"John Lakesford" > wrote in message
...
> I bet you will or have done something just as stupid in an airplane.
>
> Give these guys a break. The weren't terrorists, I don't care if they did
> violate airspace.

Strange reaction, if you are a pilot, or are concerned about the rights of
general aviation. What happened is hard to comprehend, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

John Lakesford wrote:
> I agree.
>
> And Honeck (according to his address) flies outta Iowa City, IA and not DC.
> I fly out of the middle of nowhere and can't imagine what it is like flying
> around the nations capitol.

Well, I've flown west of DC many times and into DC once. I flew into
National at night prior to 9/11. It was actually a piece of cake. I
was rather nervous on the way in having to get an IFR reservation, be
within a certain time window, etc., but it was actually much easier than
I expected. I got vectored out of line to let three airliners land and
circled a few times over one of the monuments, I forget which one now,
but it wasn't far from the prohibited area. It was really easy to see
the landmarks at night and it would have been very hard to fly near the
White House and not know it. The Potomac also provides a very good
landmark.

The only hard part was taxing in after landing!


> So I will give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They screwed up, and so
> have I.

Yes, they did and in a very serious way.

I fly from a fairly rural area (ELM and N38), but if I fly near a
metropolitan area I make sure I'm prepared. If I'm not, then I don't go
there. These guys were unprepared in several very fundamental ways and
shouldn't have been within 50 miles of DC in their stage of preparation.


Matt

[Blueskies]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
>
> Sorry, but me thinks you live in a dream world. The "security" is window
> dressing, nothing else. It looks good to voters. That's it.
>
> When have you last flown commercially?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

We all need to get the word out to the voters that this IS window dressing and nothing more. The threat is from the
person, not the aircraft or the box cutter. Good police work is the key here, not mass searches and detainments. We need
to know who the bad guys are; they definitely are not us!

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
>
> What happened is hard to comprehend, IMHO.

Easy enough for me to comprehend just as soon as I learned the pilot is 70. My
grandfather got sort of wifty in his late 60s, and one day when he was 70 he
took the car down "for an oil change" and didn't come back. The family alerted
the police, and they found him the next day halfway across Carolina. He "got
lost." Time to sell the Chrysler and revoke his driving license (actually, the
family knew that it was way past time for the latter).

So. Time to sell the Cessna and revoke his pilot certificate.

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'.

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> So. Time to sell the Cessna and revoke his pilot certificate.
>
If senility is the cause, yeah, I know what you mean. My grandpa did almost
exactly the same thin, with getting lost and keeping going.

We will see, if that is the cause.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 01:39:05 -0400, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
>> Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane
>> By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 37 minutes ago
>>
>> As a wayward Cessna
>
>What really amazes me is that there will apparently be no certificate action
>taken against these two nimrods. Not only did they barge right into

Nimrods? You are calling them "mighty hunters" or referring to the
descendents of a mighty hunter. (Webster's New Collegiate) With their
navigational abilities and situational awareness, I doubt they'd find
the woods, let alone the game. <:-))

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

>probably the best known restricted/prohibited airspace in the world, but,
>according to one of the scrambled F16 pilots, they continued on this errant
>course for several minutes while the interceptors were crossing paths and
>ejecting flares. What in God's name did they think was going on? Just how
>stupid do you have to be?
>

[Roger]

On 16 May 2005 13:34:12 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>
>> I don't have a problem with an ADIZ. The problem I have is that
>> airliners which can carry more explosives than a Ryder truck are
>> allowed to fly in it, but GA planes are not.

They have made it inconvenient enough I refuse to fly commercial.

The they implement a security system bass ackwards.
They have a watch list.
They wait for someone on the watch list to try to board a plane.
If the terrorist doesn't get on a plane the list does nothing.
If the terrorist strikes a non aviation target the list doesn't work.

Were it me (and I'm already paying for it) why not investigate the
people on the list? Clear the ones proven not to be a threat and go
after the ones who are. I'd like to get something for my money.

If you read the security journals you see how many things we have
implemented from over reaction. Things where the investment far
outweighs the return.

Here are a couple of links related to security, national id cards
better know as the uniform drivers license act, and secure flight.
:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00418:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0502.html#1
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0410.html#3

This guy puts out a pretty good news letter.

It's a *lot* of reading, but for those interested in security on
multiple levels it should prove interesting.

>
>Commercial air carriers have tightened their security to the point
>where (I suspect) it would be impossible for a 9/11-style attack to
>succeed again using commercial airliners as weapons.
>

There are those who would share a difference of opinion here. Yes, it
would be more difficult.

>Not to mention the fact that the passengers would immediately and
>violently resist, as opposed to the pre-9/11 hands-in-your-lap approach
>to a hijacking.

I think you give the average citizen far, far to much credit.

It takes some one with a fair amount of aggression, or some one really
scared to fight. Now, on a good sized airliner I would assume there
would be enough of such individuals to take down one, maybe two
individuals even if they are armed with something sharp.

One thing most people don't realize is when faced with a fight for
your life (guns fight, knife fight, some one trying to hijack the
plane you are on.. just pick a situation), your fine motor skills
desert you like rats leaving a sinking ship. Not realizing what is
happening many people just cease to function at that point. It's not
really by choice either. For a person who has never experienced it
the first time is much like being in one of those dreams where trying
to catch some one or something, or running from some one or some thing
and every thing seems to be in slow motion along with a feeling of
futility. Not that things happen in slow motion, but it's about the
best analogy I can think of at 3:00 AM.

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

[Roger]

On 17 May 2005 07:02:02 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
wrote:

>
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> >
>> > The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal
>limit,
>> > not a physical limit.
>>
>> The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of payload
>> SPACE probably before you hit that...
>>
>> You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before you
>> get to the structural limits.
>
>
>On a cool day a long runway and some patience the physical limit is
>much higher. Don't know how much but I wouldn't be suprised if it
>could be double on a winter day. Add a 150 or even a 180HP engine and
>the physical limit is huge.

Ahhh... actually no. With the larger engine the useful load is less
in the case of a 150.

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

[Sport Pilot]

Roger wrote:
> On 17 May 2005 07:02:02 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ron Natalie wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal
> >limit,
> >> > not a physical limit.
> >>
> >> The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of payload
> >> SPACE probably before you hit that...
> >>
> >> You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before you
> >> get to the structural limits.
> >
> >
> >On a cool day a long runway and some patience the physical limit is
> >much higher. Don't know how much but I wouldn't be suprised if it
> >could be double on a winter day. Add a 150 or even a 180HP engine
and
> >the physical limit is huge.
>
> Ahhh... actually no. With the larger engine the useful load is less
> in the case of a 150.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


You are talking about the legal limit! We were discussing the actual
physical limit. The amount a terrorist could take up. He won't give a
damn about what the book or law says, after all he won't be here to
prosecute.

[Roger]

On 18 May 2005 06:04:00 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
wrote:

>
>Roger wrote:
>> On 17 May 2005 07:02:02 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ron Natalie wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal
>> >limit,
>> >> > not a physical limit.
>> >>
>> >> The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of payload
>> >> SPACE probably before you hit that...
>> >>
>> >> You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before you
>> >> get to the structural limits.
>> >
>> >
>> >On a cool day a long runway and some patience the physical limit is
>> >much higher. Don't know how much but I wouldn't be suprised if it
>> >could be double on a winter day. Add a 150 or even a 180HP engine
>and
>> >the physical limit is huge.
>>
>> Ahhh... actually no. With the larger engine the useful load is less
>> in the case of a 150.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>You are talking about the legal limit! We were discussing the actual
>physical limit. The amount a terrorist could take up. He won't give a
>damn about what the book or law says, after all he won't be here to
>prosecute.

The 150 is going to handle just so much weight. If more of it is
taken up by the engine it is not going to be able to lift as much load
be it legal or not.

One of the reasons for the gross weight limit is the stall speed. I
think you'll find it goes up in a hurry when the 150 is over weight.

The Deb can handle one whale of a load, but I once had some guys fudge
a bit on what they weighed and on a very hot day.

If it happened to me now I'd just pull the throttle and taxi back,
then leave with at least one less passenger. It'd make a good, "I
learned about flying from that" story.

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

[Sport Pilot]

Roger wrote:
> On 18 May 2005 06:04:00 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Roger wrote:
> >> On 17 May 2005 07:02:02 -0700, "Sport Pilot" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ron Natalie wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The maximum Takeoff Gross Weight limit for a C-150 is a legal
> >> >limit,
> >> >> > not a physical limit.
> >> >>
> >> >> The physical limit isn't much higher. And you run out of
payload
> >> >> SPACE probably before you hit that...
> >> >>
> >> >> You'll run out of ability to maintain level flight long before
you
> >> >> get to the structural limits.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On a cool day a long runway and some patience the physical limit
is
> >> >much higher. Don't know how much but I wouldn't be suprised if
it
> >> >could be double on a winter day. Add a 150 or even a 180HP
engine
> >and
> >> >the physical limit is huge.
> >>
> >> Ahhh... actually no. With the larger engine the useful load is
less
> >> in the case of a 150.
> >>
> >> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >
> >You are talking about the legal limit! We were discussing the
actual
> >physical limit. The amount a terrorist could take up. He won't
give a
> >damn about what the book or law says, after all he won't be here to
> >prosecute.
>
> The 150 is going to handle just so much weight. If more of it is
> taken up by the engine it is not going to be able to lift as much
load
> be it legal or not.
>
> One of the reasons for the gross weight limit is the stall speed. I
> think you'll find it goes up in a hurry when the 150 is over weight.
>
> The Deb can handle one whale of a load, but I once had some guys
fudge
> a bit on what they weighed and on a very hot day.
>
> If it happened to me now I'd just pull the throttle and taxi back,
> then leave with at least one less passenger. It'd make a good, "I
> learned about flying from that" story.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


Why the hell would a terrorist give a flip about the stall speed? The
extra 50 horse power makes the plane climb like a raped ape, lower
stall speed or not. The only real reason to limit the gross weight is
the structural limits in high turbulance. The regulations for sudden
high vertical and horizontal acceleration and deceleration likely to
only occur in a thunderstorm. A terrorist attack is not likely to occur
in a T storm The C150 has a stall speed of 55 and lower with flaps. It
can go up to 70 or so and still be operational, especially with a bunch
of HP up front. The extra weight up front may even help the terrorist
as he can put more weight in back and still have a useable CG.

[dick reinhardt]

George, this 75 yr old, strongly objects! You can't go on age alone. I
don't wear glasses yet, and can fly my 182 up and down the west coast
from border to border legally, in and out of big and small airports.
Landing/taking off from LAX to a rancher friends driveway ( gravel ).
You sound like the French rental car guy in Nice who said I was too old
to rent a car. That really ****ed me off but since I couldn't speak
French, I couldn't express myself adequately. :) IF or when I do
something stupid like the DC intrusion, I will give up my ticket without
it being suspended. Carefull about broad statements, they might bite you
in the end later, no pun! :) North West Mustang
ps I did rent a car, I just went down the road aways to Italy where they
were much nicer.

[George Patterson]

dick reinhardt wrote:
> George, this 75 yr old, strongly objects! You can't go on age alone.

I didn't say you could. I said that I was not surprised after I learned that the
perpetrator was 70 years old. There are people out there who are 90 years old
and still have all their marbles, but the odds of becoming one of them are
pretty poor.

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'.

[Blueskies]

"dick reinhardt" > wrote in message ...
> > You sound like the French rental car guy in Nice who said I was too old
> to rent a car. That really ****ed me off but since I couldn't speak
> French, I couldn't express myself adequately. :) IF or when I do
> something stupid like the DC intrusion, I will give up my ticket without
> it being suspended. Carefull about broad statements, they might bite you
> in the end later, no pun! :) North West Mustang
> ps I did rent a car, I just went down the road aways to Italy where they
> were much nicer.
>

OK, no pun intended I'm sure, but you left Nice to go down the road to a place where people were nicer....sorry couldn't
help it...

;-)