Yet another media outlet gets it WRONG

[Guy Elden Jr]

Woke up this morning (5/25/05) to hear this on WPLJ in NY (in reference
to the ADIZ incursion a couple weeks ago)...

- Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
literally seconds away from doing so...

- The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...

- The "student pilot" would not be charged...

Ugh... there ought to be a way to file a lawsuit against the media for
spreading false information like this. I can't quite call it lying,
because they most likely just got their news from "other sources", but
geez, what is it going to take to get the record set straight in this
country?

--
jr

[Kev]

Perhaps AOPA should start a "News Eagles" program, where pilots take up
local newspeople.

They could show them that throttling back the engine doesn't make you
fall out of the air, explain stalls, point out how little a "dangerous
mass" small planes have, etc.

Take them on a flight for a nice meal a distance away, and you'd
probably get some converts.

[R.L.]

On land, this would be called a press conference.


"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps AOPA should start a "News Eagles" program, where pilots take up
> local newspeople.
>
> They could show them that throttling back the engine doesn't make you
> fall out of the air, explain stalls, point out how little a "dangerous
> mass" small planes have, etc.
>
> Take them on a flight for a nice meal a distance away, and you'd
> probably get some converts.
>

[gatt]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps AOPA should start a "News Eagles" program, where pilots take up
> local newspeople.
>
> They could show them that throttling back the engine doesn't make you
> fall out of the air, explain stalls, point out how little a "dangerous
> mass" small planes have, etc.

That is actually a very good idea.

-c

[Ron Natalie]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

>
> - Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
> literally seconds away from doing so...
>
I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
close to being shutdown.

> - The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...

No CFI, but even REC.AVIATORS who should no better have been making
this error right and left.
>
> - The "student pilot" would not be charged...

Have you heard anything to the contrary?

[Bob Gardner]

AOPA has had such a program for a long time. Once upon a time I took it upon
myself to have a media day at Boeing Field. Got a great turnout from FBO's,
charter operators, et al. I called all of the local print and TV outlets,
plus the Associated Press, and asked them to send representatives who were
not their normal "aviation" writers but people who need to learn about
aviation. Media turnout was poor, and the ones who showed up were the
"aviation specialists." What a waste of time and money. Only one accepted
the offer of a ride.

Bob Gardner

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps AOPA should start a "News Eagles" program, where pilots take up
> local newspeople.
>
> They could show them that throttling back the engine doesn't make you
> fall out of the air, explain stalls, point out how little a "dangerous
> mass" small planes have, etc.
>
> Take them on a flight for a nice meal a distance away, and you'd
> probably get some converts.
>

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article . com>,
Guy Elden Jr > wrote:
>Woke up this morning (5/25/05) to hear this on WPLJ in NY (in reference
>to the ADIZ incursion a couple weeks ago)...
>
[snip details of "news" "piece"]

This morning, I heard the local news station, WTOP, interviewing
Congressman Jim Moran. Moran was speaking about the move to reopen
DCA to GA, and noted that the restrictions being discussed were still
problematic, but that this was, at least, movement in the right
direction.

Also discussed was a realistic assessment of the kinds of threats that
Cessna *could* have posed, had it been hostile, along with mention of
how the pilots of the intercepting aircraft could apparently discern
some degree of confusion in the offending aircraft, as well as not
seeing a genuine threat. Further, Moran noted just how small the risk
of having the aircraft hit something actually posed, even if it had
a couple hundred pounds of TNT aboard. In addition, it was noted, both
by Moran and by the newsman posing thoughtful and clueful questions,
that running everyone out into the open exposed them to much greater
risk than sheltering in place, given the sorts of threats that were
actually possible.

It was very refreshing to hear.

yours,
Michael


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

[Guy Elden Jr]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Guy Elden Jr wrote:
>
> >
> > - Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
> > literally seconds away from doing so...
> >
> I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
> close to being shutdown.

I think that's a very big deal though. The claim that an order was
actually made is a far cry from just debating the point, which is
probably SOP anyway for any incursion that gets close enough to the
restricted zone at the center of the ADIZ.

>
> > - The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...
>
> No CFI, but even REC.AVIATORS who should no better have been making
> this error right and left.

It gives a very bad impression of instructors when they go calling this
guy an instructor. Call him a country bumpkin who should've known
better, because that's what he is.

> > - The "student pilot" would not be charged...
>
> Have you heard anything to the contrary?

Point here (and granted, this is really more a technicality for pilots)
is that the student pilot was not, at the time of the incident, acting
in the capacity of a student pilot. He couldn't have been, because the
guy who was acting as PIC was not an instructor. So the whole scenario
that this radio station described was factually wrong on several
accounts, and paints a very different picture... i.e., "instructor &
student" vs "pilot and passenger".

--
jr

[George Patterson]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
> close to being shutdown.

AOPA said the Rumsfeld was informed and that they were discussing shooting the
aircraft down when it turned.

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'.

[Chris]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps AOPA should start a "News Eagles" program, where pilots take up
> local newspeople.
>

why waste good avgas on morons

[vincent p. norris]

>Ugh... there ought to be a way to file a lawsuit against the media for
>spreading false information like this.

Yeah, but what about suing the government when it spreads false
information?

[Larry Dighera]

On 25 May 2005 08:38:56 -0700, "Guy Elden Jr" >
wrote in . com>::

>Woke up this morning (5/25/05) to hear this on WPLJ in NY (in reference
>to the ADIZ incursion a couple weeks ago)...
>
>- Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
>literally seconds away from doing so...


There's mention of Rumsfeld giving the order to shoot the little
Cessna down if necessary here: 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 ...

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> There's mention of Rumsfeld giving the order to shoot the little
> Cessna down if necessary here: 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
>

<Snipola>
> 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.
<Snipola>

I'm sorry, but how can a frequency be "unavailable in that patch
of airspace"?!?! If the transmitter and the receiver can tune to
the frequency, it's available unless it's already in use or being
jammed.

It'll probably take the proverbial "act of congress" to get them
to admit they were giving them the wrong frequency, or they were
waiting on the wrong frequency.

If you ask me, the fact that the gov't screwed up in trying to
communicate to the errant aircraft indicates the system DID NOT
WORK. What if they had gone and shot the plane down, only later
to find they signaled them the wrong frequency? They'd be open to
a pretty big lawsuit, methinks. They need to shelf the idea of
shooting down little airplanes and seriously rethink their
strategy before somebody gets needlessly killed.

Hmmm...another thought...what if a learjet went zipping through
the DC ADIZ? It'd be long gone before the scardy-cats in DC could
even zip up their pants!!!

But that makes sense, and besides, what do I know?

BTW, I'm not defending the cessna pilots at all. Just pointing
out that mistakes have been made on BOTH sides.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:24:14 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
><Snipola>
>> 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.
><Snipola>
>
>I'm sorry, but how can a frequency be "unavailable in that patch
>of airspace"?!?! If the transmitter and the receiver can tune to
>the frequency, it's available unless it's already in use or being
>jammed.

Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted.

>If you ask me, the fact that the gov't screwed up in trying to
>communicate to the errant aircraft indicates the system DID NOT
>WORK.

If our government is going to put pilots in their deadly cross hairs,
their policies must be infallible. This intercept policy is flawed,
as demonstrated by this incident.

[...]
>They need to shelf the idea of
>shooting down little airplanes and seriously rethink their
>strategy before somebody gets needlessly killed.

That is blatantly obvious to me also.

>Hmmm...another thought...what if a learjet went zipping through
>the DC ADIZ? It'd be long gone before the scardy-cats in DC could
>even zip up their pants!!!

Right. I believe the ADIZ was implemented to reduce radar clutter, so
that an intruding aircraft is more easily spotted; it can then be
dealt with by ground based fire. The effectiveness of such a security
policy is dubious at best, and pathetically ineffective in fact.

>BTW, I'm not defending the cessna pilots at all. Just pointing
>out that mistakes have been made on BOTH sides.
>

Right.

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but how can a frequency be "unavailable in that patch
> of airspace"?!?! If the transmitter and the receiver can tune to
> the frequency, it's available unless it's already in use or being
> jammed.

It was being jammed by an ELT.

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

[Kev]

> Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down,
> and they were literally seconds away from doing
> so..

I suspect they felt that they had to say this.

I also would guess that they had no real intention of shooting it down,
especially after almost screwing up with the Kentucky governor's plane,
and because it was just a Cessna 150.

Imagine the political fallout if they shot down any innocent plane
whatsoever, especially if that caused more injuries on the ground.
After that, it would be even more difficult to do anything against a
non-obvious threat.

[gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> If our government is going to put pilots in their deadly cross hairs,
> their policies must be infallible. This intercept policy is flawed,
> as demonstrated by this incident.

How is it flawed? It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.

-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:14:56 -0700, "gatt" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>> If our government is going to put pilots in their deadly cross hairs,
>> their policies must be infallible. This intercept policy is flawed,
>> as demonstrated by this incident.
>
>How is it flawed?

It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.

>It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
>the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.

That is true this time.

What if the C-150 had gotten close enough to the White House to
trigger ground fire as a result of its inability to communicate via
radio? Would you still characterize the policy as having worked?

[Big John]

Ron

I doubt they were close to being shot down. Years of experience in the
USAF and Air Defense Command where we protected the US from invaders.

Believe the release of possible shoot down is a sop to placate the
"great unwashed masses" and justify the enormous expense being spent
for our 'Air Defenses'.

Big John

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:31:32 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Guy Elden Jr wrote:
>
>>
>> - Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
>> literally seconds away from doing so...
>>
>I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
>close to being shutdown.
>
>> - The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...
>
>No CFI, but even REC.AVIATORS who should no better have been making
>this error right and left.
>>
>> - The "student pilot" would not be charged...
>
>Have you heard anything to the contrary?

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
> unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted.
<Snipola>

OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
it, won't I know so?

Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
armchair pilot.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Skywise wrote:
>> Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
>> unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted. <Snipola>
>
> OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
> Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?
>
> I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
> it, won't I know so?


I don't see how you could miss it. It is a very distinctive howl.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Sam]

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Guy Elden Jr wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
> > > literally seconds away from doing so...
> > >
> > I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
> > close to being shutdown.
>
> I think that's a very big deal though. The claim that an order was
> actually made is a far cry from just debating the point, which is
> probably SOP anyway for any incursion that gets close enough to the
> restricted zone at the center of the ADIZ.
>
> >
> > > - The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...
> >
> > No CFI, but even REC.AVIATORS who should no better have been making
> > this error right and left.
>
> It gives a very bad impression of instructors when they go calling this
> guy an instructor. Call him a country bumpkin who should've known
> better, because that's what he is.
>
> > > - The "student pilot" would not be charged...
> >
> > Have you heard anything to the contrary?
>
> Point here (and granted, this is really more a technicality for pilots)
> is that the student pilot was not, at the time of the incident, acting
> in the capacity of a student pilot. He couldn't have been, because the
> guy who was acting as PIC was not an instructor. So the whole scenario
> that this radio station described was factually wrong on several
> accounts, and paints a very different picture... i.e., "instructor &
> student" vs "pilot and passenger".

Don't bet on that. If FAA wanted the student certificate, they'd have it
and it would be up to him to try to get it back in court. Even when the
lawnchair nutcase with the balloons survived his stunt, FAA said that they
would have cancelled any certificates he had because that's all they could
really do. But he didn't have any.

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
> Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

You'd think so, yes.

> I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
> it, won't I know so?
>
> Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
> armchair pilot.

No, it's a good question and it illustrates why it seems that the folks in
the C150 weren't the only people with their heads up their butts that day.

Pete

[John T]

"Skywise" > wrote in message

>
> I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
> it, won't I know so?
>
> Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
> armchair pilot.

Keep up. :)

The Blackhawk crew asked the Cessna to tune to a second frequency after
noticing the issue on 121.5. Shaeffer, the Cessna pilot, claims an
inability to talk to them on that frequency until he'd turned 90 degrees.

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:35:40 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
><Snipola>
>> Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
>> unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted.
><Snipola>
>
>OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
>Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

I can't speak for the Blackhawk crew, but one would expect so.

>I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
>it, won't I know so?

If the ELT signal were strong enough to interfere with communications
between two aircraft in formation flight, I would think it could be
heard by both of them.

>Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
>armchair pilot.

No need to apologize.

The point is, the governments shoot-down policy for intruding aircraft
relies to a great extent on two way radio communications. At least it
seems to have in this case. To base a lethal policy on an unreliable
method of communications is half-baked at best, and displays the
government's lack of concern for the welfare of its citizens at worst.

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.

It does not. There are visual signs.

Stefan

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:17:47 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.
>
>It does not.

It seems to have to some extent in this case. And that failure in
establishing communications apparently resulted in delaying the Cessna
from diverting course away from ground based weapons and certain
death.

> There are visual signs.
>

That is true also. However, I have not read/heard reports of the
standard/documented* visual signs being successfully given in this
case.

In this case, apparently initially attempting to use radio
communications to communicate with the pilot of the Cessna 150 failed
resulting in the aircraft continuing deeper into the White House FRZ.
The F-15 intercept aircraft had to resort to the deployment of flairs
(an undocumented procedure outside what pilots are taught to expect in
intercept situations) to cause the Cessna to change course. Should
the flight have continued 15 to 20 seconds longer without changing
course, government spokesmen have said the order to shoot it down
would have been given. Such a close encounter with our government's
lethal force makes me uncomfortable, and calls into question the
adequacy of the intercept procedures as they are currently written.

From the information (of admittedly questionable credibility) I've
seen, it appears the PIC's judgment in intentionally launching without
being current to carry passengers, with a pre-9/11 chart, was notably
poor. It appears to me, that he hadn't been aloft for a good length
of time, and his lack of currency resulted in his flight becoming a
hazard to aerial navigation and causing a disruption of governmental
decorum. But I don't consider those offences to warrant a death
sentence.

So while this case reflects badly on GA pilots, it also points out the
indiscretion of the security policy currently in place in the vicinity
of our nation's capital and those who drafted it.



* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/010918intercept.html

[gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> >It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
> >the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.

> What if the C-150 had gotten close enough to the White House to
> trigger ground fire as a result of its inability to communicate via
> radio? Would you still characterize the policy as having worked?

Nope. But it didn't work out that way.

If you're arguing that the margin of error was a little slim and shows flaws
with relying on radio communications, I might agree. Except, there's no way
to hook a landline to an airplane, or board it, so using radio to
communicate with it is more or less necessity, isn't it?

'Course, publishing the ADIZ, TFRs, FARs, requiring weather briefing and
expecting a certificated pilot to be able to navigate in VFR don't seem to
have worked either.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.
-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:50:00 -0700, "gatt" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
>> >It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
>> >the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.
>
>> What if the C-150 had gotten close enough to the White House to
>> trigger ground fire as a result of its inability to communicate via
>> radio? Would you still characterize the policy as having worked?
>
>Nope. But it didn't work out that way.

It hasn't worked out that way yet. But the lethal force dictum has
only been in place for a few years so far. Given the narrow margin
the Cessna flight escaped tragedy, I would expect that someone will
get shot down for no good reason within the coming decades.

>If you're arguing that the margin of error was a little slim and shows flaws
>with relying on radio communications, I might agree.

Thank you.

>Except, there's no way
>to hook a landline to an airplane, or board it, so using radio to
>communicate with it is more or less necessity, isn't it?

It's only a necessity if you consider the security measures effective
in stopping terrorist activity. I find it difficult to see how the
current security policy accomplishes what it purports to address.
More intelligent people need to reassess what measures might be more
effective, IMO.

>'Course, publishing the ADIZ, TFRs, FARs, requiring weather briefing and
>expecting a certificated pilot to be able to navigate in VFR don't seem to
>have worked either.

Humans make mistakes; it's human nature. If those mistakes intrude on
the rights or safety of others, they should be made to compensate
those affected by their mistakes/inelegance. In this case, the
disruptive evacuation in DC was a result of misguided security
officials/policy, and the only threat to the safety of others occurred
as a result of those misguided security officials/policy not the
Cessna PIC.

>Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.

I have no sympathy for the Cessna PIC at all, but I don't consider
that to be the issue here.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> Humans make mistakes; it's human nature. If those mistakes intrude on
> the rights or safety of others, they should be made to compensate
> those affected by their mistakes/inelegance. In this case, the
> disruptive evacuation in DC was a result of misguided security
> officials/policy, and the only threat to the safety of others occurred
> as a result of those misguided security officials/policy not the
> Cessna PIC.
>
> >Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.
>
> I have no sympathy for the Cessna PIC at all, but I don't consider
> that to be the issue here.

I agree with Larry here. It seems that the entire security apparatus of
this country is run by a combination of Chicken Little and Fearless
Fosdick.

For those who don't remember, Fearless Fosdick was the Al Capp takeoff
on Dick Tracy, who shot "criminal jaywalkers" while ignoring real
criminals. Everyone knows the story of Chicken Little.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.