Mandatory Flight Plans???

[NW_Pilot]

Wow what a weird conversation today!! A few reps / attorneys in my district
were at the bar were talking about the latest GA crash in NYC so I had to
listen in so I bought one a drink at started to mingle a but. They were
talking about making flight plans mandatory and mandatory VFR reporting
points/routs in large city's & near schools. By this time I had to interrupt
them and tell them how the voting general aviation public would frown upon
them rules....they were not assertive and were not willing to listen and
told me that the general aviation part of the public is to small to make a
sway in this argument and they will do what ever that they decide they think
is right for the rest (majority) of the public.

These guys had no idea about what general aviation really was until I
brought up that the small jets that they fly in for their spur of the moment
trips is considered general aviation then they started to listen a bit.(yea
because now it concerned them) I explained how it would make it more time
consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already stressed controllers
by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic in to the system
for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job and they would
have to deal with it!

Gawd I hope the U.S. don't end up like the European bureaucracy when it
comes to VFR flying!!!!!!!

[Jim Macklin]

A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that would
not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs, this
was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
airplane.
So I contacted a few Congressmen and Senators and told them
what the procedure would be, a light twin or even business
jet would depart the Caribbean resort headed for Miami or
Atlanta. After take-off they would open their flight plan.
But an electrical failure would knock out the lights, radios
and navigation. The transponder would not work. Navigation
errors or perhaps an engine problem would put them well off
the flight plan. ATC would know that some airplane had a
problem,
But the "unknown" aircraft would be picked up by military
radar and since it would not have a transponder and might
even be at low altitude, fighters would be scrambled.
Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
returning from golf in the Bahamas.

The idea died.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"NW_Pilot" > wrote in
message . ..
| Wow what a weird conversation today!! A few reps /
attorneys in my district
| were at the bar were talking about the latest GA crash in
NYC so I had to
| listen in so I bought one a drink at started to mingle a
but. They were
| talking about making flight plans mandatory and mandatory
VFR reporting
| points/routs in large city's & near schools. By this time
I had to interrupt
| them and tell them how the voting general aviation public
would frown upon
| them rules....they were not assertive and were not willing
to listen and
| told me that the general aviation part of the public is to
small to make a
| sway in this argument and they will do what ever that they
decide they think
| is right for the rest (majority) of the public.
|
| These guys had no idea about what general aviation really
was until I
| brought up that the small jets that they fly in for their
spur of the moment
| trips is considered general aviation then they started to
listen a bit.(yea
| because now it concerned them) I explained how it would
make it more time
| consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already
stressed controllers
| by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic
in to the system
| for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job
and they would
| have to deal with it!
|
| Gawd I hope the U.S. don't end up like the European
bureaucracy when it
| comes to VFR flying!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jim Macklin" > said:
>Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
>it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
>returning from golf in the Bahamas.
>
>The idea died.

Not entirely. A few years back in South America somewhere, an air force
plane belonging to one of those South American countries that was being
directed by an USAF AWACS plane shot down a plane running with no lights
and "refusing to answer" radio calls. Turns out it was a delegation of
American ministers delivering bibles.

Anybody else remember the incident I'm rememebering?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....if you squeeze a MS product into a small enough memory footprint there may
not be sufficient space for it to fall over, thus giving the impression it's
reliable. -- Geoff Lane

[Judah]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, "Jim Macklin"
> > said:
>>Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
>>it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
>>returning from golf in the Bahamas.
>>
>>The idea died.
>
> Not entirely. A few years back in South America somewhere, an air force
> plane belonging to one of those South American countries that was being
> directed by an USAF AWACS plane shot down a plane running with no lights
> and "refusing to answer" radio calls. Turns out it was a delegation of
> American ministers delivering bibles.
>
> Anybody else remember the incident I'm rememebering?
>

It was in Peru.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/21/peru.plane.02/

http://judgejimgray.com/gpage4.html

[Jim Macklin]

Yes. As I recall they were in a seaplane following a river
and the radar intercept operators took the turns as "evasive
maneuvers" and the plane was shoot down.


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
| In a previous article, "Jim Macklin"
> said:
| >Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio
calls,
| >it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be
killed
| >returning from golf in the Bahamas.
| >
| >The idea died.
|
| Not entirely. A few years back in South America
somewhere, an air force
| plane belonging to one of those South American countries
that was being
| directed by an USAF AWACS plane shot down a plane running
with no lights
| and "refusing to answer" radio calls. Turns out it was a
delegation of
| American ministers delivering bibles.
|
| Anybody else remember the incident I'm rememebering?
|
| --
| Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
| ...if you squeeze a MS product into a small enough memory
footprint there may
| not be sufficient space for it to fall over, thus giving
the impression it's
| reliable. -- Geoff Lane

[[email protected]]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> Gawd I hope the U.S. don't end up like the European bureaucracy when it
> comes to VFR flying!!!!!!!

Huh?
If you refer to flight plans it is only when crossing international
borders(not allways) or when you plan to fly over inhospitable terrain.
And some large busy airports(the really big ones) want you to file a
flight plan, if you are welcome anyway.
Yep, we are really struggeling with our VFR flight plans.

-Kees (D-EHNE)

[john smith]

In article <6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
> airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that would
> not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs, this
> was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
> airplane.
> So I contacted a few Congressmen and Senators and told them
> what the procedure would be, a light twin or even business
> jet would depart the Caribbean resort headed for Miami or
> Atlanta. After take-off they would open their flight plan.
> But an electrical failure would knock out the lights, radios
> and navigation. The transponder would not work. Navigation
> errors or perhaps an engine problem would put them well off
> the flight plan. ATC would know that some airplane had a
> problem,
> But the "unknown" aircraft would be picked up by military
> radar and since it would not have a transponder and might
> even be at low altitude, fighters would be scrambled.
> Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
> it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
> returning from golf in the Bahamas.
> The idea died.

Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
Baron.

[Jim Macklin]

That was a identification air intercept to get a visual and
it was an accident, not a shoot down.

BTW, I noticed that I typed shoot in an other post, about
the seaplane when I meant shot.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
| > airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that
would
| > not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs,
this
| > was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
| > airplane.
| > So I contacted a few Congressmen and Senators and told
them
| > what the procedure would be, a light twin or even
business
| > jet would depart the Caribbean resort headed for Miami
or
| > Atlanta. After take-off they would open their flight
plan.
| > But an electrical failure would knock out the lights,
radios
| > and navigation. The transponder would not work.
Navigation
| > errors or perhaps an engine problem would put them well
off
| > the flight plan. ATC would know that some airplane had
a
| > problem,
| > But the "unknown" aircraft would be picked up by
military
| > radar and since it would not have a transponder and
might
| > even be at low altitude, fighters would be scrambled.
| > Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio
calls,
| > it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be
killed
| > returning from golf in the Bahamas.
| > The idea died.
|
| Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was
rammed by an
| F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all
onboard the
| Baron.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04...
> Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
> it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
> returning from golf in the Bahamas.
>
> The idea died.

And the downside is...what?

[Judah]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:45362c9e$0$596$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04...
>> Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio calls,
>> it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be killed
>> returning from golf in the Bahamas.
>>
>> The idea died.
>
> And the downside is...what?
>
>
>

They might be pro-aviation Congressmen.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

john smith wrote:
> Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
> F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
> Baron.


That was unintentional. The F-4 guy was trying to identify the aircraft; not
run into it. And he sure as hell didn't shoot at it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Mxsmanic]

NW_Pilot writes:

> Wow what a weird conversation today!! A few reps / attorneys in my district
> were at the bar were talking about the latest GA crash in NYC so I had to
> listen in so I bought one a drink at started to mingle a but. They were
> talking about making flight plans mandatory and mandatory VFR reporting
> points/routs in large city's & near schools.

No surprise here.

> By this time I had to interrupt
> them and tell them how the voting general aviation public would frown upon
> them rules....they were not assertive and were not willing to listen and
> told me that the general aviation part of the public is to small to make a
> sway in this argument ...

They are right.

> ... and they will do what ever that they decide they think
> is right for the rest (majority) of the public.

More specifically, they'll do whatever they want and rationalize it as
being for the public good.

> These guys had no idea about what general aviation really was until I
> brought up that the small jets that they fly in for their spur of the moment
> trips is considered general aviation then they started to listen a bit.(yea
> because now it concerned them)

Yup.

> I explained how it would make it more time
> consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already stressed controllers
> by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic in to the system
> for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job and they would
> have to deal with it!

Did you tell them that they'd have to plan their trips a lot further
ahead if flight plans were mandatory?

> Gawd I hope the U.S. don't end up like the European bureaucracy when it
> comes to VFR flying!!!!!!!

Bureaucracies never shrink on their own.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
> F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
> Baron.

Ramming and shooting down are two different things.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> Ramming and shooting down are two different things.
>

Brilliant!

[Jim Macklin]

Of the idea dying? None, of a good airplane destroyed, a
few jobs in Wichita or Independence building a new one. Of
a feeling of regret on the part of the AF pilot who was just
following orders, terrible. Of Congressman, it would
depend, Congress might do another "ELT law" and really cause
problems. You'll have to consider the rest of the
possibilities on your own.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04...
| > Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio
calls,
| > it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be
killed
| > returning from golf in the Bahamas.
| >
| > The idea died.
|
| And the downside is...what?
|
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
> F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
> Baron.
>

"Rammed" implies intentional. As I recall it was a midair collision during
an attempt at identification when the Baron turned in to the path of the
F-4.

[Bucky]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Rammed" implies intentional.

Not necessarily. The dictionary uses this example sentence [1], "The
car went out of control and rammed the truck." Yes, often the context
that "ram" is used implies that it's intentional, but is it not wrong
to use it the other way.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ram

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Bucky" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Not necessarily. The dictionary uses this example sentence [1], "The
> car went out of control and rammed the truck." Yes, often the context
> that "ram" is used implies that it's intentional, but is it not wrong
> to use it the other way.
>
> [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ram
>

My message applied to it's use here.

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> NW_Pilot writes:
> > I explained how it would make it more time
> > consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already stressed controllers
> > by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic in to the system
> > for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job and they would
> > have to deal with it!
>
> Did you tell them that they'd have to plan their trips a lot further
> ahead if flight plans were mandatory?

I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
overloaded.

A lot of people plan and file a flight at the last minute, or even
after take-off.

Kev

[Ron Lee]

"Kev" > wrote:

>I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
>overloaded.
>
>A lot of people plan and file a flight at the last minute, or even
>after take-off.

And I suspect that the vast majority of GA flights are not on flight
plans.

Ron Lee

[john smith]

> > Not necessarily. The dictionary uses this example sentence [1], "The
> > car went out of control and rammed the truck." Yes, often the context
> > that "ram" is used implies that it's intentional, but is it not wrong
> > to use it the other way.
> > [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ram

> My message applied to it's use here.

I never said it was intentional. I specifically stated the conditions
were IMC.

[cjcampbell]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
> airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that would
> not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs, this
> was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
> airplane.

Of course, this violates international treaty obligations which
prohibit the US from firing upon civilian aircraft. It was the
violation of this treaty that gave the US grounds for condemning the
Soviet Union for shooting down KAL 007 and which in turn earned the US
worldwide condemnation for shooting down an Iranian airliner by
accident.

This Congressman apparently liked the Soviet way.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
> overloaded.

It takes longer to prepare a flight plan than it does not to prepare
one, so in theory people could be delayed.

> A lot of people plan and file a flight at the last minute, or even
> after take-off.

There isn't any need to tell them that part. When one is dealing with
people who aren't very bright, sometimes misinformation can only be
effectively countered by more misinformation, as the reality may be so
subtle that it escapes their understanding.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"cjcampbell" > wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
> > A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
> > airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that would
> > not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs, this
> > was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
> > airplane.
>
> Of course, this violates international treaty obligations which
> prohibit the US from firing upon civilian aircraft. It was the
> violation of this treaty that gave the US grounds for condemning the
> Soviet Union for shooting down KAL 007 and which in turn earned the US
> worldwide condemnation for shooting down an Iranian airliner by
> accident.
>
> This Congressman apparently liked the Soviet way.

His name is Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R), KY.

Neither party has a monopoly on stupidity!

[cjcampbell]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "cjcampbell" > wrote:
>
> > Jim Macklin wrote:
> > > A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that ANY
> > > airplane approaching the USA without a clearance that would
> > > not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs, this
> > > was before War on Terror. They were very serious, any
> > > airplane.
> >
> > Of course, this violates international treaty obligations which
> > prohibit the US from firing upon civilian aircraft. It was the
> > violation of this treaty that gave the US grounds for condemning the
> > Soviet Union for shooting down KAL 007 and which in turn earned the US
> > worldwide condemnation for shooting down an Iranian airliner by
> > accident.
> >
> > This Congressman apparently liked the Soviet way.
>
> His name is Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R), KY.
>
> Neither party has a monopoly on stupidity!

No. And I find this tendency on the part of both parties towards
totalitarianism to be very disturbing.

[Jim Macklin]

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"cjcampbell" > wrote in
message
oups.com...
|
| Orval Fairbairn wrote:
| > In article
. com>,
| > "cjcampbell" > wrote:
| >
| > > Jim Macklin wrote:
| > > > A number of years ago, a Congressman proposed that
ANY
| > > > airplane approaching the USA without a clearance
that would
| > > > not answer a radio call be shot down. War on drugs,
this
| > > > was before War on Terror. They were very serious,
any
| > > > airplane.
| > >
| > > Of course, this violates international treaty
obligations which
| > > prohibit the US from firing upon civilian aircraft. It
was the
| > > violation of this treaty that gave the US grounds for
condemning the
| > > Soviet Union for shooting down KAL 007 and which in
turn earned the US
| > > worldwide condemnation for shooting down an Iranian
airliner by
| > > accident.
| > >
| > > This Congressman apparently liked the Soviet way.
| >
| > His name is Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R), KY.
| >
| > Neither party has a monopoly on stupidity!
|
| No. And I find this tendency on the part of both parties
towards
| totalitarianism to be very disturbing.
|

[Ron Natalie]

Kev wrote:

> I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
> overloaded.
>
It's not the computer. I can't get anywhere near an FAA
computer. The closest I can get is one of the outsourced
FSS-pukes or piece of crap DUAT vendors.