Incursion statement issued

[Corky Scott]

The two pilots who flew their Cessna 150 into the Washington ADIZ have
issued a statement explaining what happened. It's at:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/405-full.html#189826

Just in case anyone is interested....

Corky Scott

[Jay Beckman]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> The two pilots who flew their Cessna 150 into the Washington ADIZ have
> issued a statement explaining what happened. It's at:
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/405-full.html#189826
>
> Just in case anyone is interested....
>
> Corky Scott

Along similar lines, did you notice the next article down? Re: Opening DCA
to GA again?

Jay B

[Corky Scott]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 10:04:00 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>Along similar lines, did you notice the next article down? Re: Opening DCA
>to GA again?

I did. Hope it actually happens but you never know with Washington.
Best to wait till it actually becomes law before cheering.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 12:35:38 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote in
>::

>The two pilots who flew their Cessna 150 into the Washington ADIZ have
>issued a statement explaining what happened. It's at:
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/405-full.html#189826

That link redirects you here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1here

Because these news articles referenced tend to become unavailable
after a time, I have copied the body of the article below for archive
purposes:


----------------------------------------------------------
Press Release Source: Sheaffer/Martin


Statement from Hayden ''Jim'' Sheaffer and Troy D. Martin Regarding
Events Associated with the May 11, 2005 Encroachment of Restricted
Airspace in the Nation's Capital
Friday May 20, 6:13 pm ET


LITITZ, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 20, 2005--We are mere private
citizens from a small Pennsylvania town who have found ourselves
thrust into the national spotlight after an unplanned and
unintentional brush with local, state and federal authorities, during
what was meant to be an uneventful flight from Lancaster to Lumberton,
North Carolina. In an effort to help everyone understand what happened
during this incident, the following is a recounting of those events
associated with our flight on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.

In preparation for our upcoming flight, on the evening before
departure, we consulted several current weather maps and sectional
maps of Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, North Carolina.

The morning of the flight, Jim as the pilot in command, once again
checked various weather websites on his home computer for the flight
area and consulted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
website, looking for Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR). We were not
required to file a flight plan because we were going to be using
visual flight rules (VFR) for our journey.

Jim conducted a thorough pre-flight inspection of the airplane, a
Cessna 150, its communication devices and navigational devices and
filled it with fuel prior to departure.

We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the
flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the
entire flight.

In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
area of Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a
more than anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to
infringe upon the Washington, D.C., restricted zones.

After an undetermined amount of time, a Blackhawk helicopter appeared
off to the right side of our airplane and attempted to communicate
with us using a hand-held sign indicating the emergency radio
frequency we were to use to receive instructions. Although our radio
had been working during the flight, which we know, because we were
able to monitor other aircraft communications, we were unable to
communicate with the Blackhawk helicopter on the frequency indicated.
A helicopter crew member used hand signals to indicate a second
frequency option. We tuned to that frequency, identified our aircraft,
and requested further instructions. We received no response on either
of the indicated frequencies despite repeated attempts by both of us.
The helicopter then disappeared off to the right and within a short
time thereafter, two F-16 fighter planes appeared and began making
repeated passes. After making several passes, the F-16 planes dropped
warning flares.

In response to the dropped flares, we made a 90-degree turn to the
right to a westerly direction. At this point, for the first time, we
were able to visually identify our location as being in a Flight
Restricted Zone (FRZ). Once again, a helicopter appeared, whereupon we
were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the
original emergency frequency that we had been instructed by placard to
use by the first helicopter crew. We were then instructed to stay on
our current heading and proceed to the Frederick, Md., airport, where
we landed safely and were subsequently met by representatives from
civil, state and federal authorities and agencies. We were treated
exceptionally well and proper, and with great courtesy after we
explained what had happened.

On a personal note, we would like to sincerely thank everyone for
their prayers and their expressions of concern for us with regard to
this incident. We very sincerely regret all of the disruption that
this event has caused for so many people in our nation's capital.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Jim Sheaffer, 69, retired, is a licensed pilot residing with his wife,
Joyce, in Lititz, PA. Troy Martin, 36, is a local business owner and
student pilot with 30 hours of flight time who lives in Akron, PA,
with his wife Jill and two young sons.

Both men are active in their communities and belong to the
Experimental Aircraft Association, Chapter 540 as well as the Vintage
Aero Club.

A principal in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Joseph, McDermott &
Reiner, P.C., Mark T. McDermott is engaged in general practice with an
emphasis on litigation, aviation law, and pilot medical certification.
Previously, he served as an attorney with the Federal Aviation
Administration. He is past president of the National Transportation
Safety Board Bar Association and currently serves as the association's
Vice President. McDermott has been retained by Jim Sheaffer to
represent him in the FAA's investigation of this matter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
Sheaffer/Martin
Media Contact:
Mark McDermott, esquire, 202-331-1955
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's troubling to think, that those with authority to shoot down two
pilots were unable to establish radio communication with the
innocently errant flight. All ended well this time, but what of
future incidents? Will other pilots stumbling across the invisible
airspace boundaries be as fortunate, or will they suffer the fate of
the missionaries erroneously shot down over Peru?



http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/24/24002.html


CIA helps Peruvian jet shoot down Christian missionaries over Amazon

The Peruvian anti-drug tactic of blowing suspected drug smuggling
planes out of the sky aroused little notice in the press or elsewhere
as long as the victims were presumed bad guys. Since April 20th - when
a Peruvian pilot guided to his target by contract employees of the CIA
in a plane leased from the Defense Department attacked a civilian
Cessna and killed a US missionary and her infant child - the airwaves
have been filled with mutual finger-pointing and hand-wringing as Peru
and the US each seek to assign blame to the other.

Such recriminations, however, may miss the forest for the trees.
Arguing over who followed which procedures does not affect the point
encapsulated in the Convention on International Civil Aviation's
Article 3, amended in 1984 in the wake of the Russian shoot-down of
KAL007:

"The contracting States recognize that every state must refrain from
resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight and
that, in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the
safety of the aircraft must not be endangered."

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the
Montreal-based body that administers international aviation
regulation, reemphasized its position in 1996 when it passed a
resolution recognizing that "the use of weapons against civil aircraft
in flight is incompatible with elementary considerations of humanity,
the rules of customary international law as codified in Article 3 and
the norms of governmental behavior."

Both the United States and Peru are signatories to the convention.
That did not stop the two from cooperating in a policy that results in
the summary execution of persons suspected of - not convicted of or
even charged with - flying cocaine across Peru. While the actual
numbers of shootdowns and resulting deaths are buried in security
bureaucracies in Lima and Washington, the figure of 30 aircraft shot
down has been widely reported.

In a 1997 article in ICAO's house journal, Safety in Flight, the
body's legal officer, John Augustin, explained that even if Article 3
is held in abeyance, international law forbids shooting down
non-threatening civilian aircraft:

"In all cases," wrote Augustin, "where an aircraft is identified as
civilian, the State is entitled to request it to land or change
course; the aircraft must obey such order unless unable to do so. In
attempting to give directives to an aircraft, a State must avoid
subjecting it to danger. The primary remedy for the state is to make
appropriate diplomatic representations to the aircraft's state of
registry. If the aircraft does not pose or appear to pose a threat to
security, force must not be used even if the aircrew disobeys orders
to land or to change course."

The problem with international law, of course, is enforcement. ICAO
spokesperson Denis Chagnon told DRCNet that the ultimate recourse
would be the International Court of Justice in the Hague. However,
said Chagnon, "I doubt that would happen. The only entities that would
have status to bring the case would be member countries, not private
citizens or organizations."

Even if some country were to bring the matter before the court, the
United States has simply ignored the court when it proved
inconvenient, as was the case when the tribunal found the US guilty of
violating international law by mining Nicaraguan harbors in the early
1980s.

The "fly and die" tactic has quietly been US policy since 1994, when,
after it was briefly halted because of legal concerns, President
Clinton and the Congress approved changes in US law that allowed US
officials to escape legal liability. US radar stations and
surveillance planes track suspected drug smuggling flights, then
notify the Peruvian authorities, who send up fighter jets to intercept
and force the planes to land, or blow them out of the sky if they do
not respond quickly enough.

Peruvian and US authorities say the tactic was justified in the effort
to stop the flow of cocaine into the US. Peru garnered rave reviews
from US officials for its fierce anti-drug programs of the 1990s,
although the degree to which the "fly and die" policy contributed is
difficult to quantify.

Not everyone shares the US government's anything goes attitude, and
certainly not pilots. Dan Morningstar, spokesman for the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association, which represents more than half of all
US pilots, told DRCNet there is "no justification" for shooting down
civilian aircraft.

"We condemn the shoot-down, and have reminded everyone that we opposed
resuming assistance to Peru in 1994, said Morningstar. "We warned then
that there was a real risk of shooting down civilian aircraft."

AOPA decried the policy as inhumane and a double standard. "We
wouldn't tolerate shooting or killing anyone inside US borders simply
because they were suspected drug smugglers," said Morningstar. "You
can't do that in the US - shooting down someone's plane constitutes,
at the least, an unreasonable search and seizure." "Look," he said,
"we believe that any nation that has the resources to track and
intercept an aircraft also has the resources to follow that aircraft
to its landing point and make an arrest. We acknowledge that it would
require some negotiation and bilateral agreements, but again, the risk
to innocent civilians far outweighs the risk to national security.
This is a lesson we should have learned from KAL 007."

Latin America activist organizations also condemned the shootdown.
"This incident is a reminder to all of us that the war on drugs is
indeed a war with casualties," Gina Amatangelo of the Washington
Office on Latin America told DRCNet. "In this case, the victims are
innocent individuals from the US, but every day the US drug war in
Latin America creates more victims," she said.

"The US government absolutely is responsible for the deaths of these
US citizens because of its role in promoting this policy, supplying
the personnel and equipment to make it possible, and even funding the
base from which the Peruvian fighter took off," Amatangelo noted. "A
liberal shoot-down policy is obviously dangerous, but it is carried
out by Peru as part of a larger effort to militarize drug enforcement
in the region. This is a tragic example of what we can expect to come
as the US increases military funding in the region."

Adam Isaacson, senior policy analyst at the Center for International
Policy, concurred. "We bought the plane used to shoot down the
missionaries, we trained the people who pulled the trigger, it was all
ours until the very last moment," he told DRCNet. "We share the blame.
This also calls into question the nature of the people with whom we
are working. The Peruvian military has longstanding problems of
corruption, human rights violations, and lack of accountability," he
said. "Nor has it made any difference in the street price of cocaine,"
he noted.

The deaths of missionary Veronica Bowers, 35, and her 7-month-old
adopted daughter Charity were foreshadowed years ago. The US began
setting up radar posts to track airborne drug smuggling in the Andes
during the administration of George Bush the elder and began sharing
the information with Colombian and Peruvian authorities in an effort
to repress the region's thriving cocaine trade. After Peru shot down a
suspected smuggler's plane in 1993, the program was briefly halted the
following year when Justice Department lawyers determined that US
officials could be prosecuted - and even sentenced to death - under US
anti-terrorism laws for their involvement in shooting down civilian
aircraft. At that time, the program was already causing grave concern
among pilots and air transport industry groups and even some program
participants.

Stuart Matthews, founder of the Flight Safety Foundation, told Air
Safety Week in June, 1994, he strongly opposed renewing the shoot-down
scheme. "It's contrary to international law, it's contrary to US law,"
he said. "Even if an airplane were full of drug smugglers and was shot
down, what ever happened to due process, to which we all subscribe?"

The Air Transport Association of America relayed the same sentiments.
"There is concern here, because it's always been the policy of our
members to oppose any government shooting down of any civil aircraft
for any reason," he told the industry weekly. "It would then allow
that government to target civil aircraft for other reasons. It's one
more step down the slippery slope."

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which quickly condemned
the shootdown can lay claim to a certain prescience. "The AOPA will
vigorously oppose any action by the government which would condone or
encourage the use of deadly force against civilian aircraft," wrote
AOPA president Phil Boyer. "Those in Washington who applaud the
so-called 'shoot-down' policies of the Colombian and Peruvian
governments cannot have forgotten that two civilian airliners were
shot down in recent years after they were mistaken for military
aircraft," Boyer continued. "Considering those horrifying events - one
of which involved our own armed forces - how can anyone feel assured
that a twin-engine Cessna carrying members of Congress on an overseas
fact-finding mission will never be mistaken for an identical
twin-engine Cessna full of drug smugglers?"

An Associated Press dispatch from the same period quoted some Customs
agents and radar operators as also having deep misgivings. "I don't
think we should be doing it," radar operator John Fowler told the AP.
"I'm a Christian man. I am a believer. How can I as a believer work
toward an end which deals with killing people? How can you justify
this situation where our Constitution says innocent until proven
guilty?" asked Fowler, who was suspended for five days in 1993 for
refusing to participate in a similar program in Ecuador.

Another operator quoted by AP spoke anonymously to protect his job.
"This definitely doesn't jibe with our version of democracy and human
rights," he said. "Probable cause doesn't warrant the death penalty.
Mistakes can happen."

However, congressional hard-liners, prodded by armchair warriors such
as New York Times columnist Abe Rosenthal, brushed aside such fears,
instead using the halt to polish their drug warrior credentials. Rep.
(now Sen.) Charles Schumer (D-NY) slammed the Clinton administration
decision to halt the program as "unwise, untimely, and unusually
dangerous," while Rep. (now Sen.) Robert Torricelli (D-NY) called it
"surrender and retreat."

When contacted by DRCNet, the official line at Torricelli's office
was, "We are concentrating on other matters." One staff member who
asked to be quoted only off the record told DRCNet Torricelli had
"nothing" to say about the dead missionaries.

DRCNet calls to Sen. Schumer's office went unreturned. An embattled
Peruvian embassy gamely offered a defense. "The program was good for
Peru and good for the United States," a spokesman told DRCNet. "It
helped reduce coca cultivation."

Actually, it didn't. Source country eradication programs have
historically only shifted cultivation from place to place not lowered
overall growing. A chart of Bolivian, Peruvian, Colombian and total
coca cultivation figures (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/coca-growing.gif),
for example, shows that cultivation in Peru did decrease significantly
during the 1980s, but that total cultivation nevertheless hovered at
around 200,000 hectares (nearly 800 square miles) as Colombian growers
took up the slack.

Eradication and interdiction programs such as the shootdowns combined
have also failed to achieve their goal of decreasing cocaine
availability to increase price and discourage use. In 1988, for
example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates the
purity-adjusted retail price of cocaine (1998 dollars) was $213, but
only $149 by 2000. Heroin prices fell even more steeply during the
same period, from $3,153 to $1,029.

Will the deaths of Veronica and Charity Bowers then be in vain? Or
will they spark a rethinking of our global drug policies?

[John T]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
> area of Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a
> more than anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to
> infringe upon the Washington, D.C., restricted zones.

That's one helluva diversion to avoid P-40.

> Although our radio
> had been working during the flight, which we know, because we were
> able to monitor other aircraft communications, we were unable to
> communicate with the Blackhawk helicopter on the frequency indicated.
> A helicopter crew member used hand signals to indicate a second
> frequency option. We tuned to that frequency, identified our aircraft,
> and requested further instructions. We received no response on either
> of the indicated frequencies despite repeated attempts by both of us.
> ...
> Once again, a helicopter appeared, whereupon we
> were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the
> original emergency frequency that we had been instructed by placard to
> use by the first helicopter crew.

hmmm... Radio no worky-worky. Few minutes later, radio do worky-worky.
Operator error? Set the frequency in COM1, but transmit on COM2? Add that
to this gem:

> In response to the dropped flares, we made a 90-degree turn to the
> right to a westerly direction. At this point, for the first time, we
> were able to visually identify our location as being in a Flight
> Restricted Zone (FRZ).

It took F-16s dropping flares for them to figure they should change
direction? It took them turning to the West to realize their location? I'm
sorry, but as much as I would like to see the ADIZ disappear and make my
flying life easier, these guys are not who I want to share my airspace with
if:
a) they can't figure out they're 15 miles inside restricted airspace;
b) they don't alter course after interception;
c) they can't figure out they set the frequency in COM1 but are transmitting
on COM2 (speculation).

I've certainly done C, but that's probably the first thing I'd check under
those circumstances and I couldn't talk to them. Either way, the radio
didn't miraculously "just start working" so somebody flipped something in
the cockpit.

> McDermott has been retained by Jim Sheaffer to
> represent him in the FAA's investigation of this matter.

Good. He's going to need a good lawyer.

> It's troubling to think, that those with authority to shoot down two
> pilots were unable to establish radio communication with the
> innocently errant flight.

For these guys to try pulling this "aw shucks, we're just a coupla country
bumpkins who got lost" is insulting. This was not an "innocently errant
flight". This was a *negligently* errant flight.

And nobody had authority to shoot anything.

> All ended well this time, but what of
> future incidents? Will other pilots stumbling across the invisible
> airspace boundaries be as fortunate, or will they suffer the fate of
> the missionaries erroneously shot down over Peru?

Not even close in comparison. Nobody authorized nor requested permission to
pull the trigger. Yes, the ADIZ needs to disappear, but this incident
showed "the system" worked (unfortunately, since this will probably bolster
various alphabet soup agencies around DC).

It's difficult not to be hard on these two "pilots". They didn't realize
they were miles into restricted airspace, couldn't properly work their
radios, took great pains to avoid prohibited airspace a fraction the size of
the ADIZ, but did not opt to completely avoid the ADIZ by moving East a few
more miles.

At *best* they showed extremely poor judgement. At worst, they shouldn't be
flying with navigation skills so poor they had to turn 90 degrees to
visually identify their position.

They embarrassed the rest of us.

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

[gatt]

"John T" > wrote in message news:42924168$0$6599$

> At *best* they showed extremely poor judgement. At worst, they shouldn't
be
> flying with navigation skills so poor they had to turn 90 degrees to
> visually identify their position.
>
> They embarrassed the rest of us.

My feeling exactly! If you have to turn the airplane 90 degrees, does
that mean you couldn't just turn your head? Out here you might not be able
to pull that off. I fly up the Columbia River Gorge frequently. If you
get disoriented and have to turn 90 degrees, you've got maybe a minute
before you're in the cliffs or the trees.

-c

[Jens Krueger]

Larry Dighera > wrote:

> We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the
> flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the
> entire flight.

Huh? Is 'Jim' a CFI? Thought the Troy guy was a student pilot?

--
This signature now under new management!
Reply-to address new and improved! And Valid.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:55:44 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted
>> area of Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a
>> more than anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to
>> infringe upon the Washington, D.C., restricted zones.
>
>That's one helluva diversion to avoid P-40.

Without a sectional of that end of the country, I have difficulty
appreciating the diversion. Could you describe it?

>> Although our radio
>> had been working during the flight, which we know, because we were
>> able to monitor other aircraft communications, we were unable to
>> communicate with the Blackhawk helicopter on the frequency indicated.
>> A helicopter crew member used hand signals to indicate a second
>> frequency option. We tuned to that frequency, identified our aircraft,
>> and requested further instructions. We received no response on either
>> of the indicated frequencies despite repeated attempts by both of us.
>> ...
>> Once again, a helicopter appeared, whereupon we
>> were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the
>> original emergency frequency that we had been instructed by placard to
>> use by the first helicopter crew.
>
>hmmm... Radio no worky-worky. Few minutes later, radio do worky-worky.
>Operator error? Set the frequency in COM1, but transmit on COM2? Add that
>to this gem:

Without more information, it's difficult to assign blame for the
inability to communicate. Certainly, your hypothesis is one possible
explanation, but I could think of others (like the F-16 flight-lead
involved in the Florida MAC November 16, 2000).

>> In response to the dropped flares, we made a 90-degree turn to the
>> right to a westerly direction. At this point, for the first time, we
>> were able to visually identify our location as being in a Flight
>> Restricted Zone (FRZ).
>
>It took F-16s dropping flares for them to figure they should change
>direction? It took them turning to the West to realize their location? I'm
>sorry, but as much as I would like to see the ADIZ disappear and make my
>flying life easier, these guys are not who I want to share my airspace with
>if:
>a) they can't figure out they're 15 miles inside restricted airspace;
>b) they don't alter course after interception;

Agreed. The PIC was not competent.

>c) they can't figure out they set the frequency in COM1 but are transmitting
>on COM2 (speculation).
>
>I've certainly done C, but that's probably the first thing I'd check under
>those circumstances and I couldn't talk to them. Either way, the radio
>didn't miraculously "just start working" so somebody flipped something in
>the cockpit.
>
>> McDermott has been retained by Jim Sheaffer to
>> represent him in the FAA's investigation of this matter.
>
>Good. He's going to need a good lawyer.
>
>> It's troubling to think, that those with authority to shoot down two
>> pilots were unable to establish radio communication with the
>> innocently errant flight.
>
>For these guys to try pulling this "aw shucks, we're just a coupla country
>bumpkins who got lost" is insulting. This was not an "innocently errant
>flight". This was a *negligently* errant flight.

Agreed. The PIC was negligent, but he was apparently innocent of any
malice.

>And nobody had authority to shoot anything.

Of course, that's not true. If the C-150 had gotten closer to the
White House, it would have been downed.

>> All ended well this time, but what of
>> future incidents? Will other pilots stumbling across the invisible
>> airspace boundaries be as fortunate, or will they suffer the fate of
>> the missionaries erroneously shot down over Peru?
>
>Not even close in comparison. Nobody authorized nor requested permission to
>pull the trigger.

Please cite the source of your assertion. Or is it just your guess?

>Yes, the ADIZ needs to disappear, but this incident
>showed "the system" worked

Define "worked". The inability to establish communications certainly
confirms that the system almost resulted in the death of two airmen.

>(unfortunately, since this will probably bolster
>various alphabet soup agencies around DC).

What is that supposed to mean?

>It's difficult not to be hard on these two "pilots". They didn't realize
>they were miles into restricted airspace, couldn't properly work their
>radios, took great pains to avoid prohibited airspace a fraction the size of
>the ADIZ, but did not opt to completely avoid the ADIZ by moving East a few
>more miles.

You have provided no evidence that the C-150 pilots were at fault for
the initial lack of communication. It's pretty clear the PIC was
negligent, but he deserves to be heard before conclusions are drawn.

>At *best* they showed extremely poor judgement. At worst, they shouldn't be
>flying with navigation skills so poor they had to turn 90 degrees to
>visually identify their position.
>
>They embarrassed the rest of us.

Agreed. The PIC's mistakes do cast a bad light on us all.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

John T wrote:
> At *best* they showed extremely poor judgement. At worst, they shouldn't be
> flying with navigation skills so poor they had to turn 90 degrees to
> visually identify their position.
>
> They embarrassed the rest of us.


They didn't embarass me. I don't identify with them at all. I'm not without
sympathy, but they screwed the pooch and now Shaeffer has to pay.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Wizard of Draws]

On 5/23/05 2:25 PM, in article ,
"Larry Dighera" > spewed:

>
> EDITOR'S NOTE:
>
> Jim Sheaffer, 69, retired, is a licensed pilot residing with his wife,
> Joyce, in Lititz, PA. Troy Martin, 36, is a local business owner and
> student pilot with 30 hours of flight time who lives in Akron, PA,
> with his wife Jill and two young sons.
>

Reads like someone trying to cover his ass.
No cheap GPS? No backup radio? No idea where Washington DC is? No idea what
a Blackhawk helicopter trying to communicate with them might mean?

I do know that as a student, I performed every aspect of pre-flight and
flight planning. My instructor would make a cursory inspection of the plane
and my plan, but usually no more. If the narrative is accurate, the student
did nothing but fly the plane. Exactly how was this student learning to do
anything but point the plane in the general direction he wanted to go?
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[JohnH]

>> They embarrassed the rest of us.
>
>
> They didn't embarass me. I don't identify with them at all. I'm not
> without sympathy, but they screwed the pooch and now Shaeffer has to
> pay.

Your pooch is getting it in the end as well from others flying in this
manner.

A few more of these and the Bushies will fill all our cylinders with sand.

[JohnH]

> Reads like someone trying to cover his ass.
> No cheap GPS? No backup radio? No idea where Washington DC is? No
> idea what a Blackhawk helicopter trying to communicate with them
> might mean?
>
> I do know that as a student, I performed every aspect of pre-flight
> and flight planning. My instructor would make a cursory inspection of
> the plane and my plan, but usually no more. If the narrative is
> accurate, the student did nothing but fly the plane. Exactly how was
> this student learning to do anything but point the plane in the
> general direction he wanted to go?

This doesn't appear to have been originally intended as a training flight.
Sadly, it was in more ways than one ;)

[Gary Drescher]

"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in
message news:BEB80303.71037%jeffbTAKEOUTALLCAPS@TOEMAILwiz ardofdraws.com...
> If the narrative is accurate, the student
> did nothing but fly the plane. Exactly how was this student learning to do
> anything but point the plane in the general direction he wanted to go?

He wasn't flying with a CFI. It wasn't a training flight. He was just a
passenger manipulating the controls.

--Gary

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Without a sectional of that end of the country, I have difficulty
> appreciating the diversion. Could you describe it?

DC area including ADIZ and P-40:
http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-063x.jpg

Flight path:
http://tinyurl.com/8ow44

They weren't trying to avoid P-40 (Camp David airspace NW of Washington).
They were on a direct path to Lumberton, NC.

> Without more information, it's difficult to assign blame for the
> inability to communicate. Certainly, your hypothesis is one possible
> explanation, but I could think of others...

Larry, this is the worst baiting attempt I've seen from you. What frequency
do you think they requested first? Even if it wasn't a "standard"
frequency, what frequency *should* the pilot have tuned during an intercept
procedure? If *ALL* else fails, what frequency would you attempt to use?

As with your earlier analogy, the Florida MAC had *nothing* in common with
this issue.

> Of course, that's not true. If the C-150 had gotten closer to the
> White House, it would have been downed.

Perhaps. The point remains the intercept pilots did not request nor were
granted permission (authority) to open fire at any point in this scenario.
Therefore, nobody had authority to shoot down the plane.

> Please cite the source of your assertion. Or is it just your guess?

Several news stories reported what I said. Show me otherwise.

> Define "worked". The inability to establish communications certainly
> confirms that the system almost resulted in the death of two airmen.

No, it didn't. Their negligence almost killed them.

Again, this should not in any way be construed as any kind of support for
the ADIZ, but I certainly wouldn't go flying around Nevada without knowing
*exactly* where I should *not* be. Likewise, if you're not familiar with
the DC area and the ADIZ procedures, do yourself (and the rest of us) a
favor and stay well clear.

>> (unfortunately, since this will probably bolster
>> various alphabet soup agencies around DC).
>
> What is that supposed to mean?

It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much more
restrictive airspace around DC.

> You have provided no evidence that the C-150 pilots were at fault for
> the initial lack of communication. It's pretty clear the PIC was
> negligent, but he deserves to be heard before conclusions are drawn.

Oh, please. Read their own statement:
"...our radio had been working during the flight, which we know, because we
were able to monitor other aircraft communications... [After turning
westbound] we were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the
original emergency frequency..."

Their radio suddenly worked after they turned 90 degrees and visually
verified they'd screwed the royal pooch. I'm not buying the idea that they
could not raise ANYbody on 121.5. Not in this area. Even *IF* the
Blackhawk crew had accidentally turned off that frequency, I guarantee
either the Citation, the F-16s, Potomac TRACON or one of the many aircraft
in the area listening to guard on COM2 would have heard and responded.

I doubt you're naive enough to honestly think *all* of the intercept aircrew
and everybody else in the area were not listening to 121.5.

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

[Jay Beckman]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Their radio suddenly worked after they turned 90 degrees and visually
> verified they'd screwed the royal pooch. I'm not buying the idea that
> they could not raise ANYbody on 121.5. Not in this area. Even *IF* the
> Blackhawk crew had accidentally turned off that frequency, I guarantee
> either the Citation, the F-16s, Potomac TRACON or one of the many aircraft
> in the area listening to guard on COM2 would have heard and responded.
>
> I doubt you're naive enough to honestly think *all* of the intercept
> aircrew and everybody else in the area were not listening to 121.5.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

Somone over on r.a.student posted that there may have been an ELT inerfering
with 121.5 in the area at the time.

FWIW,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Dave Stadt]

"Jens Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the
> > flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the
> > entire flight.
>
> Huh? Is 'Jim' a CFI? Thought the Troy guy was a student pilot?

Jim is not a CFI and Troy is a student pilot. What's your point?

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
> The two pilots who flew their Cessna 150 into the Washington ADIZ have
> issued a statement explaining what happened.

Alternate URL
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050520/205544.html?.v=1

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'.

[Grumman-581]

"John T" wrote in message
...
> It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much more
> restrictive airspace around DC.

Then let 'em have it... Pick a particular distance -- say 20 miles -- and
put a ring of lasers or search lights pointing straight up... ALL aircraft
are prohibited from this area... No Congress-critters coming into there, no
presidential helicopters, NOTHING... Make EVERYONE have to land somewhere
outside of this 20 mile radius... While we're at it, let's ban ALL motor
vehicular traffic within this 20 mile radius also... Some might say that the
government would grind to a hault... AND THIS WOULD BE A BAD THING???

Maybe even build a wall around the city to keep all the crooks inside the
city?

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:
>
> Set the frequency in COM1, but transmit on COM2?

In a Cessna 150? Maybe, but twin NAV/COMs are pretty rare.

> I'm
> sorry, but as much as I would like to see the ADIZ disappear and make my
> flying life easier, these guys are not who I want to share my airspace with
> if:
> a) they can't figure out they're 15 miles inside restricted airspace;
> b) they don't alter course after interception;
> c) they can't figure out they set the frequency in COM1 but are transmitting
> on COM2 (speculation).

In addition to that, there are several excellent VORs that keep you out of the
ADIZ *and* P-40. Just head for Westminster, then Frederick, then a dogleg to
Linden, and you're around everything.

> It's difficult not to be hard on these two "pilots". They didn't realize
> they were miles into restricted airspace, couldn't properly work their
> radios, took great pains to avoid prohibited airspace a fraction the size of
> the ADIZ, but did not opt to completely avoid the ADIZ by moving East a few
> more miles.

Or West. They selected a course pretty much right in the middle of the danger arc.

> At *best* they showed extremely poor judgement. At worst, they shouldn't be
> flying with navigation skills so poor they had to turn 90 degrees to
> visually identify their position.

The FAA agrees. Schaeffer is charged with violations of FARs 61.57(a), FAR
91.103, FAR 91.13(a), FAR 91.131(a)(1), FAR 73.83, FAR 91.133(a), FAR 91.139(c),
and FAR 99.7. They've revoked his certificate. He can try to get it back after a
year. He's appealing.

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'.

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
[snip]
> Maybe even build a wall around the city to keep all the crooks inside the
> city?


Escape from DC - the movie. This one has legs...


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Jens Krueger wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the
>>flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the
>>entire flight.
>
> Huh? Is 'Jim' a CFI? Thought the Troy guy was a student pilot?

Troy is a student pilot. Schaeffer is not a CFI. Schaeffer was acting PIC (a
student cannot act as PIC). From the various articles, it appears that Schaeffer
was not attempting to provide instruction, so he doesn't have to be a CFI. The
situation is exactly the same as if I were taking my family on a trip and had my
non-rated stepson handle the controls. Note that Schaeffer apparently was *not*
current to carry passengers, however, and he's been charged on that count.

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 T]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:Bzxke.1093$rr.88@fed1read01
>
> Somone over on r.a.student posted that there may have been an ELT
> inerfering with 121.5 in the area at the time.

Fair enough. I still don't find it credible that they failed on the second
frequency. Beyond that, even "gubment employees" can think to hold up a
"Follow Me" sign.

None of this detracts from Shaeffer's negligence.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:31:07 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Without a sectional of that end of the country, I have difficulty
>> appreciating the diversion. Could you describe it?
>
>DC area including ADIZ and P-40:
>http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-063x.jpg
>
>Flight path:
>http://tinyurl.com/8ow44
>
>They weren't trying to avoid P-40 (Camp David airspace NW of Washington).
>They were on a direct path to Lumberton, NC.

Thank you for the links.

The ADIZ is clearly marked on the sectional, so that it can't be
missed by any pilot using it. I wonder if the PIC was using an
expired, pre-ADIZ sectional, or any chart at all for navigation?
Given his apparent lack of recent flight experience, I wonder how long
it had been since he had flown in the area. Pitifully pathetic ...

>> Without more information, it's difficult to assign blame for the
>> inability to communicate. Certainly, your hypothesis is one possible
>> explanation, but I could think of others...
>
>Larry, this is the worst baiting attempt I've seen from you. What frequency
>do you think they requested first? Even if it wasn't a "standard"
>frequency, what frequency *should* the pilot have tuned during an intercept
>procedure? If *ALL* else fails, what frequency would you attempt to use?

Despite your protests above, two-way communication requires both
interceptor and interceptee radios to be tuned to the same frequency.
As a result, there is equal opportunity for each to cause
communications to fail.

>As with your earlier analogy, the Florida MAC had *nothing* in common with
>this issue.

In the military/civil mishap I mentioned, the military flight-lead
failed to correctly set his radio to the frequency he was given by
ATC, so it illustrates that military pilots are not infallible.

>> Of course, that's not true. If the C-150 had gotten closer to the
>> White House, it would have been downed.
>
>Perhaps. The point remains the intercept pilots did not request nor were
>granted permission (authority) to open fire at any point in this scenario.
>Therefore, nobody had authority to shoot down the plane.

You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the
ground.

>> Please cite the source of your assertion. Or is it just your guess?
>
>Several news stories reported what I said. Show me otherwise.

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a link to support what I heard
on the news. It was an interview with one of the F-16 pilots who
intimated that ground personnel were authorized to shoot down intruder
aircraft. Of course, the pilot couldn't explicitly reveal government
security policy, but it was clear from what he said, that if the
aircraft had come in closer proximity to the White House, it would
have been downed.

>> Define "worked". The inability to establish communications certainly
>> confirms that the system almost resulted in the death of two airmen.
>
>No, it didn't. Their negligence almost killed them.

Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would
have almost killed them.

>Again, this should not in any way be construed as any kind of support for
>the ADIZ, but I certainly wouldn't go flying around Nevada without knowing
>*exactly* where I should *not* be. Likewise, if you're not familiar with
>the DC area and the ADIZ procedures, do yourself (and the rest of us) a
>favor and stay well clear.

Agreed.

>>> (unfortunately, since this will probably bolster
>>> various alphabet soup agencies around DC).
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
>It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much more
>restrictive airspace around DC.

Oh, that alphabet soup.

I would think that it is VP Cheney who is the force behind the
repressive government stance in the name of security. Wasn't he the
principle drafter of the Patriot Act?

>> You have provided no evidence that the C-150 pilots were at fault for
>> the initial lack of communication. It's pretty clear the PIC was
>> negligent, but he deserves to be heard before conclusions are drawn.
>
>Oh, please. Read their own statement:
>"...our radio had been working during the flight, which we know, because we
>were able to monitor other aircraft communications... [After turning
>westbound] we were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the
>original emergency frequency..."
>
>Their radio suddenly worked after they turned 90 degrees and visually
>verified they'd screwed the royal pooch. I'm not buying the idea that they
>could not raise ANYbody on 121.5. Not in this area. Even *IF* the
>Blackhawk crew had accidentally turned off that frequency, I guarantee
>either the Citation, the F-16s, Potomac TRACON or one of the many aircraft
>in the area listening to guard on COM2 would have heard and responded.

I see your reasoning now. I suppose any response from other aircraft
would depend on what was broadcast, but you have a point.

>I doubt you're naive enough to honestly think *all* of the intercept aircrew
>and everybody else in the area were not listening to 121.5.

I just try not to jump to conclusions without some supporting
evidence.

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:y5yke.18399$4d6.16747@trndny04...
> From the various articles, it appears that Schaeffer was not attempting to
> provide instruction, so he doesn't have to be a CFI.

There's no requirement to be a CFI in order to attempt to give instruction.
It's just that instruction by a non-CFI doesn't count toward the training
time required for a certificate or rating.

--Gary

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the
> ground.

No, I haven't. Let me clarify, though. Nobody had "authorization" even if
they had the authority.

> Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would
> have almost killed them.

Semantics, perhaps, but negligently straying where bullets are threatened to
be loosed is the fault of the pilot. Doggedly continuing on a flight path
directly over downtown DC with military/interceptor aircraft in formation or
circling is the fault of the pilot.

"Duh, dem's purdy planes, Homer. Ya think they give this show to all the
visitors?"

All The Powers That Be have made great efforts to inform pilots of the rules
of this airspace. Beyond dismantling it (which I want), I don't know what
else they can do to educate pilots. The Visual Warning System is a step in
the right direction, but even after they publish it in the AIM as they've
indicated, the pilots have to read/hear about it to know what to do.

Otherwise, the cockpit conversation will be "Duh, dem's purdy
red-greenlights. I didn't know it was Christmas, already."

> I would think that it is VP Cheney who is the force behind the
> repressive government stance in the name of security. Wasn't he the
> principle drafter of the Patriot Act?

I thought you don't jump to conclusions? Even *if* Cheney is the
powermonger you seem to think he is, do you honestly think there are no
other bureaucracies (regardless of political leanings) with the same goal?

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

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a link to support what I heard
> on the news. It was an interview with one of the F-16 pilots who
> intimated that ground personnel were authorized to shoot down intruder
> aircraft.

Jay Honeck posted an AP article that contains "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." It continues
to state that Rumsfeld and the president have the authority to order a shootdown
and that Rumsfeld was in the loop at the time. The thread is entitled "It was
really close..." and Jay's post is the initial one.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:KNxke.2683$Is4.2073@attbi_s21...
> "John T" wrote in message
> ...
> > It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much
more
> > restrictive airspace around DC.
>
> Then let 'em have it... Pick a particular distance -- say 20 miles -- and
> put a ring of lasers or search lights pointing straight up... ALL aircraft
> are prohibited from this area... No Congress-critters coming into there,
no
> presidential helicopters, NOTHING... Make EVERYONE have to land somewhere
> outside of this 20 mile radius... While we're at it, let's ban ALL motor
> vehicular traffic within this 20 mile radius also... Some might say that
the
> government would grind to a hault... AND THIS WOULD BE A BAD THING???
>
> Maybe even build a wall around the city to keep all the crooks inside the
> city?
>
They would just tunnel under it. They'd hire a bunch of illegal aliens to
dig it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:33:20 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>>
>> You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the
>> ground.
>
>No, I haven't. Let me clarify, though. Nobody had "authorization" even if
>they had the authority.

According to this report, the order to shoot down the hapless little
Cessna 150 was only 15 to 20 seconds away from occurring, because the
policy relies on unreliable radio communications:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7972808/
washingtonpost.com Highlights
Military was set to down Cessna
Authority granted as plane strayed deep into capital
Updated: 5:19 a.m. ET May 25, 2005

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave military
officials the authority to shoot down, if necessary, a small plane
that wandered into restricted airspace over the nation's capital
May 11, according to two senior federal officials.

For 11 intense minutes, customs aircraft and military fighter jets
tried to intercept the Cessna 150 and determine whether the pilots
were confused and lost or were targeting Washington. Military
officials never deemed the aircraft to be hostile, but White House
and U.S. Capitol officials grew more concerned as it flew within
three miles of the executive mansion.

The plane, one of the federal officials said, came within "15 to
20 seconds" of being downed before its pilots finally heeded
repeated orders to turn away from the city.

The new details, also corroborated yesterday by a senior federal
law enforcement official briefed on events, came as U.S. military
and homeland security officials review the effectiveness of an air
defense system established for the Washington area after the 2001
terrorist attacks. The officials spoke on the condition of
anonymity because much of the air defense system is classified.

As authorities piece together the lessons of the scare --
described by some officials as the closest the government has come
to downing a civilian plane over Washington since Sept. 11, 2001
-- they are confronting sensitive issues involving split-second
decisions, communications and the federal chain of command.

Against a light aircraft moving at a relatively slow 100 mph, with
two evidently confused pilots, authorities were able to order the
evacuation of the White House and Capitol complex only two to
three minutes before the plane would have reached either. Outside
analysts said it remains unknown what might happen against a
larger, faster aircraft intending to evade defenders.

"The question is, if it were a faster plane . . . whether or not
the system would have been as responsive," said Rep. Bennie
Thompson (Miss.), senior Democrat on the Homeland Security
Committee.

Based on a Homeland Security Department chronology, it is unclear
whether jet fighters would have been in position to take action
against the Cessna before it reached the White House or Capitol.
The Cessna penetrated a 16-mile-radius no-fly zone at 11:50 a.m.;
F-16 fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base
two minutes later.

The White House and Capitol were evacuated just after noon, as the
plane continued to approach. The fighters fired warning flares at
the Cessna at 12:04 p.m., and it was diverted.

Pentagon and Homeland Security officials have said the air defense
system worked effectively during the crisis. But in a statement
released Friday, the pilots said they had trouble communicating on
the radio frequency that a customs helicopter crew signaled for
them to use.

Officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and
Border Protection confirmed the communications problems cited by
the Cessna pilots, Hayden "Jim" Sheaffer, 69, and Troy Martin, 36,
both of Pennsylvania. The frequency was unavailable in that patch
of airspace, the officials said.
CONTINUED: Emergency locator beacon ...


>> Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would
>> have almost killed them.
>
>Semantics, perhaps, but negligently straying where bullets are threatened to
>be loosed is the fault of the pilot. Doggedly continuing on a flight path
>directly over downtown DC with military/interceptor aircraft in formation or
>circling is the fault of the pilot.

There is little doubt that the Sheaffer made many mistakes, but that's
no excuse for our government's implementation of a flawed security
policy.

>All The Powers That Be have made great efforts to inform pilots of the rules
>of this airspace. Beyond dismantling it (which I want), I don't know what
>else they can do to educate pilots. The Visual Warning System is a step in
>the right direction, but even after they publish it in the AIM as they've
>indicated, the pilots have to read/hear about it to know what to do.

Because the ADIZ does nothing to protect the White House except create
the public perception that something is being done at the expense of
unnecessarily placing pilots in mortal danger, a responsible
government would dismantle it.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> According to this report, the order to shoot down the hapless little
> Cessna 150 was only 15 to 20 seconds away from occurring, because the
> policy relies on unreliable radio communications:

The policy does not rely on "unreliable radio communications". If the
policy were dependent on radio, then the Cessna 340 (?) that violated the
ADIZ a week later would not have survived since its radios were fried by
lightning. It essentially relies on air-to-air intercepts by government
aircraft which do not depend on radio comms.

Let's not forget these guys were WAY into restricted airspace by this point.
They'd had WAY more than enough time to realize, "Oh, there's Baltimore and
this big road beneath us is I-95 and, oh, that must be Washington up ahead."
The fact that one of two radio frequencies attempted was unusable does not
in any way convince me that was why they were "15-20 seconds away" from
being shot down.

What was the deal with the second frequency, anyway? I haven't seen any
mention of the actual frequency, but I'm confident it wasn't the same 121.5
they'd just heard the ELT on.

Listen. They *knew* they'd be dealing with the ADIZ. They should have
known what to do when a military aircraft comes alongside on a standard
intercept, yet they continued on essentially a beeline to downtown DC.
*They* were the ones in the wrong here. Not the government crews doing
everything but lasso the plane to get them to alter course.

> There is little doubt that the Sheaffer made many mistakes, but that's
> no excuse for our government's implementation of a flawed security
> policy.

The "flawed policy" has been in place for years. Shaeffer knew it, screwed
it and is now trying to play "country bumpkin". It's insulting.

I do agree the ADIZ is nothing but a "Do Something" reaction of bureaucrats.

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

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:
>
> Listen. They *knew* they'd be dealing with the ADIZ.

There's a fair amount of evidence that they didn't know but won't admit it.
There was a post in the last two days to the effect that the FAA found a
pre-9-11 chart in the aircraft and that the pilots intended to fly the old VFR
exclusion through the class-B. I'm looking forward to AOPA's analysis of the
hearings, once those are done. The FAA isn't going to tell what it knows until
the hearings, and the PIC isn't ever going to tell what he knows.

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'.

[Arketip]

John T wrote:


> Listen. They *knew* they'd be dealing with the ADIZ. They should have
> known what to do when a military aircraft comes alongside on a standard
> intercept, yet they continued on essentially a beeline to downtown DC.
> *They* were the ones in the wrong here. Not the government crews doing
> everything but lasso the plane to get them to alter course.
>

What would you do when you are intercepted? Start to make turns?

I believe I would keep flying straight and level till I receive orders
from the intercepting aircraft on what to do, being that by radio, hand
signals or whatever.

[John T]

"Arketip" > wrote in message

>
> What would you do when you are intercepted? Start to make turns?
>
> I believe I would keep flying straight and level till I receive orders
> from the intercepting aircraft on what to do, being that by radio,
> hand signals or whatever.

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-2

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

[John T]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:dpvle.3533$zb.3284@trndny01
>
> There's a fair amount of evidence that they didn't know but won't
> admit it.

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. Even if it turns out he *didn't* know,
my position that he's getting what he deserves is reinforced even more.
What pilot flying the East Coast doesn't know about the DC ADIZ? This isn't
the first time it's made national news and it's certainly made a lot of hay
in the aviation press.

> There was a post in the last two days to the effect that
> the FAA found a pre-9-11 chart in the aircraft and that the pilots
> intended to fly the old VFR exclusion through the class-B.

That doesn't earn any sympathy points from me, either. How many charting
changes do you think have been made since then?

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 07:37:16 -0400, "John T" > wrote in
>::

>
>> There was a post in the last two days to the effect that
>> the FAA found a pre-9-11 chart in the aircraft and that the pilots
>> intended to fly the old VFR exclusion through the class-B.
>
>That doesn't earn any sympathy points from me, either.

Agreed. But it does lend credibility to the notion that the PIC of
the Cessna was unaware of the DC ADIZ, and thought the corridor
through Class B was still existent.

[Arketip]

John T wrote:
> "Arketip" > wrote in message
>
>
>>What would you do when you are intercepted? Start to make turns?
>>
>>I believe I would keep flying straight and level till I receive orders
>>from the intercepting aircraft on what to do, being that by radio,
>>hand signals or whatever.
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-2
>

As I said...

[George Patterson]

John T wrote:
>
> That doesn't earn any sympathy points from me, either. How many charting
> changes do you think have been made since then?

If you think I have any sympathy for him, you have another think coming.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[John T]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:TUOle.1453$zb.533@trndny06
> If you think I have any sympathy for him, you have another think
> coming.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. :)

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

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:TUOle.1453$zb.533@trndny06
> If you think I have any sympathy for him, you have another think
> coming.


"Sympathy" is a word in the dictionary between "****" and "syphilis".

[Blueskies]

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

Ploink