Aircraft Carrier and airspace?

[Dallas]

This question was brought up in another group and never answered.

Assume you are flying off the coast of Hawaii and can see an aircraft
carrier group in the distance. Is there an airspace classification around
it? What's to keep you from buzzing it at 1,000 feet (other than a couple
of Phalanx shooting at you :- )


--
Dallas

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> This question was brought up in another group and never answered.
>
> Assume you are flying off the coast of Hawaii and can see an aircraft
> carrier group in the distance. Is there an airspace classification around
> it? What's to keep you from buzzing it at 1,000 feet (other than a couple
> of Phalanx shooting at you :- )

You will be called and warned off of the radio, if that does not get it,
you will be intercepted, if that doesn't get it, you will be filled with hot
lead, or tungsten, or whatever stuff they make hot these days.

I still think declaring an emergency and landing on a carrier would be worth
the hassle. Maybe! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jul 18, 2:13*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > This question was brought up in another group and never answered.
>
> > Assume you are flying off the coast of Hawaii and can see an aircraft
> > carrier group in the distance. *Is there an airspace classification around
> > it? *What's to keep you from buzzing it at 1,000 feet (other than a couple
> > of Phalanx shooting at you :- )
>
> *You will be called and warned off of the radio, if that does not get it,
> you will be intercepted, if that doesn't get it, you will be filled with hot
> lead, or tungsten, or whatever stuff they make hot these days.
>
> I still think declaring an emergency and landing on a carrier would be worth
> the hassle. *Maybe! <g>
> --
> Jim in NC

That pretty much happened off 'Nam, didn't it, on the Midway? Guy was
bringing his family out during the evacuation of Saigon. Remember the
pictures of 'copters being pushed over the side? That was to make
room so the little bird dog of an airplane could land. He landed
safely, btw,

[Dallas]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:13:15 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> You will be called and warned off of the radio

Yeah, but on what frequency? Chances are they have no idea what frequency
you're on.

My guess is that an aircraft carrier is considered a towered airport...
but how would you know their frequency to make contact? Maybe it's a
portable MOA or restricted airspace. I've never seen anything in the FARs.


Maybe it's "nothing"... after all just a few months ago a pair of Russian
TU-95 Bear bombers overflew the USS Nimitz. One of them flew directly over
the Nimitz at 2000 feet and no one shot them down.

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/02/11/uss-nimitz-buzzed-by-russian-bombers-intercepted-by-f-18-fighter-jets/


> I still think declaring an emergency and landing on a carrier would be worth
> the hassle. Maybe! <g>

Just don't catch the wire with the nose strut... you'd look funny upside
down... :- )


--
Dallas

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dallas wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:13:15 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>> You will be called and warned off of the radio
>
> Yeah, but on what frequency? Chances are they have no idea what frequency
> you're on.

121.5


>
> My guess is that an aircraft carrier is considered a towered airport...
> but how would you know their frequency to make contact? Maybe it's a
> portable MOA or restricted airspace. I've never seen anything in the FARs.
>

Here's the problem you are looking at from a legal standpoint and
wanting to add a legal tag to it. They aren't. They would be looking at
you as a threat.


>
> Maybe it's "nothing"... after all just a few months ago a pair of Russian
> TU-95 Bear bombers overflew the USS Nimitz. One of them flew directly over
> the Nimitz at 2000 feet and no one shot them down.

And just how many weapons do you think were tracking that Bear the whole
time?

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dallas schrieb:
> Assume you are flying off the coast of Hawaii and can see an aircraft

How far off? International airspace?

#m

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 18, 1:47*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Dallas schrieb:
>
> > Assume you are flying off the coast of Hawaii and can see an aircraft
>
> How far off? International airspace?
>
> #m

The USN has said before that it considers aircraft approaching within
10 miles of the career valid targets for attack. However, that's in a
combat zone, probably not much would happen while steaming out of
Pearl. The Navy has shot down at least one airliner who got too close
to a task group in the middle east. It was the subject of an
investigation, not sure what happened with that though. The plane was
also on the wrong transponder code.

-Robert

[TheSmokingGnu]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The Navy has shot down at least one airliner who got too close
> to a task group in the middle east. It was the subject of an
> investigation, not sure what happened with that though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_%28CG-49%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

> The plane was
> also on the wrong transponder code.

But not this. The aircraft was using the right code. The sailors aboard
the Vincennes just didn't bother to check the civilian flight schedules.

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Here's the problem you are looking at from a legal standpoint and
> wanting to add a legal tag to it. They aren't. They would be looking at
> you as a threat.

CARRIER DESTROYS DEADLY CESSNA IN MILITARY-FAMILY CONFLICT

Yes, that makes a really good headline.

> And just how many weapons do you think were tracking that Bear the whole
> time?

Tracking is routine, shooting is not.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:22:32 GMT, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> But not this. The aircraft was using the right code. The sailors aboard
> the Vincennes just didn't bother to check the civilian flight schedules.

Yeah... that was pretty ugly on our part... lots of floating dead Iranian
civilians in the water. They haven't gotten over it yet.

Pretty much the same thing as the Russians shooting down Korean Air Lines
Flight 007 in 1983.
--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> > Here's the problem you are looking at from a legal standpoint and
> > wanting to add a legal tag to it. They aren't. They would be looking at
> > you as a threat.

> CARRIER DESTROYS DEADLY CESSNA IN MILITARY-FAMILY CONFLICT

Babbling, inane nonsense.

> > And just how many weapons do you think were tracking that Bear the whole
> > time?

> Tracking is routine, shooting is not.

How would you have any clue what goes on in the military from down deep
in your bunker?

You haven't a clue how real military engagements work, or to put it more
concisely, you don't know **** from shinola about the military or
anything else in the real world.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:22:32 GMT, TheSmokingGnu wrote:

> > But not this. The aircraft was using the right code. The sailors aboard
> > the Vincennes just didn't bother to check the civilian flight schedules.

> Yeah... that was pretty ugly on our part... lots of floating dead Iranian
> civilians in the water. They haven't gotten over it yet.

> Pretty much the same thing as the Russians shooting down Korean Air Lines
> Flight 007 in 1983.
> --
> Dallas

Not quite.

The Soviet Union had a long history of shoot first and ask questions
later.

The US was never in general so trigger happy.

If it were, I personally would have blown away a **** load of people.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary schrieb:

> The USN has said before that it considers aircraft approaching within
> 10 miles of the career valid targets for attack.

Whatever they say. When in international waters/airspace they have to
follow international rules, not theirs. (In theory and as long as you
are not the target of them; you also can't treat them accordingly
[international court])

oh well. It drifts.

questions from the OP stays: is there an airspace around them?
I add: within US territory and in international space?

#m

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
> The US was never in general so trigger happy.

*muahahahahahahahahahaha*
This made a really good start of the day.

ahh! and beware that you don't fall off the earth when coming too close ...

#m

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
> > The US was never in general so trigger happy.

> *muahahahahahahahahahaha*
> This made a really good start of the day.

> ahh! and beware that you don't fall off the earth when coming too close ...

> #m

Yet another gibbering USENET idiot...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> schrieb:
>>> The US was never in general so trigger happy.
>
>> *muahahahahahahahahahaha*
>> This made a really good start of the day.
>
>> ahh! and beware that you don't fall off the earth when coming too close ...
>
>> #m
>
> Yet another gibbering USENET idiot...

Well, then back up your above statement about how peaceful you are or
have been - BEFORE you start calling names. But I already know one of
the answers ... :-/

But I doubt that you can bring up *good* arguments.

hand, #m

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> Here's the problem you are looking at from a legal standpoint and
>> wanting to add a legal tag to it. They aren't. They would be looking
>> at you as a threat.
>
> CARRIER DESTROYS DEADLY CESSNA IN MILITARY-FAMILY CONFLICT
>
> Yes, that makes a really good headline.
>
>> And just how many weapons do you think were tracking that Bear the
>> whole time?
>
> Tracking is routine, shooting is not.

Anthony, you're a ****ing moron. Go stick your head back up your ass.
That is something which will benefit mankind.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:42:46 -0500, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:13:15 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>> You will be called and warned off of the radio
>
>Yeah, but on what frequency? Chances are they have no idea what frequency
>you're on.
>

you dont fly much do you?

Stealth Pilot

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> How would you have any clue what goes on in the military from down deep
> in your bunker?

I know that some fighter pilots with ego and judgement problems try to
terrorize civilian aircraft.

> You haven't a clue how real military engagements work ...

This wasn't a military engagement, despite the pilot's fantasies to the
contrary.

[[email protected]]

In a long history of ignorant remarks, you've reached a new level when
you wrote

On Jul 19, 7:23*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> I know that some fighter pilots with ego and judgement problems try to
> terrorize civilian aircraft.
>

They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at risk
by displaying that kind of judgment. You 'know' nothing!

[john smith]

How does a carrier operate in home waters?
Does it always sail with escort vessels?

On the open water, a carrier task force sails with picket vessels
operating at a standoff distance to intercept potential threats before
they can strike the carrier (in theory).

If you are operating over open water, is it not standard procedure to
monitor 121.5 MHz?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
> value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at risk
> by displaying that kind of judgment.

Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk. And I
suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege, which is why it
kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to publicly announce that
the pilot got off scott-free.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
>> value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at
>> risk by displaying that kind of judgment.
>
> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk.
> And I suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege,
> which is why it kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to
> publicly announce that the pilot got off scott-free.
>

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
> > value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at risk
> > by displaying that kind of judgment.
>
> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk. And I
> suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege, which is why it
> kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to publicly announce that
> the pilot got off scott-free.

You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
statements

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots
>> > so value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it
>> > at risk by displaying that kind of judgment.
>>
>> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk.
>> And I suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege,
>> which is why it kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to
>> publicly announce that the pilot got off scott-free.
>
> You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
> statements
>

Then again , he may not.


Bertie

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
>> value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at risk
>> by displaying that kind of judgment.
>
> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk. And I
> suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege, which is why
> it
> kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to publicly announce
> that
> the pilot got off scott-free.


No different than a non-pilot continually trolling a pilots NG.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > How would you have any clue what goes on in the military from down deep
> > in your bunker?

> I know that some fighter pilots with ego and judgement problems try to
> terrorize civilian aircraft.

Non sequitur.

> > You haven't a clue how real military engagements work ...

> This wasn't a military engagement, despite the pilot's fantasies to the
> contrary.

Non sequitur.

Try and stay on subject and tell us about your vast military experience.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
> > value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at risk
> > by displaying that kind of judgment.

> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk. And I
> suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege, which is why it
> kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to publicly announce that
> the pilot got off scott-free.

Utter and total nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
> > Martin Hotze > wrote:
> >> schrieb:
> >>> The US was never in general so trigger happy.
> >
> >> *muahahahahahahahahahaha*
> >> This made a really good start of the day.
> >
> >> ahh! and beware that you don't fall off the earth when coming too close ...
> >
> >> #m
> >
> > Yet another gibbering USENET idiot...

> Well, then back up your above statement about how peaceful you are or
> have been - BEFORE you start calling names. But I already know one of
> the answers ... :-/

What the hell are you babbling about?

> But I doubt that you can bring up *good* arguments.

Arguement to what?

You are illucid.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 19, 11:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >> > They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots
> >> > so value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it
> >> > at risk by displaying that kind of judgment.
>
> >> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk.
> >> And I suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege,
> >> which is why it kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to
> >> publicly announce that the pilot got off scott-free.
>
> > You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
> > statements
>
> Then again , he may not.
>
> Bertie

When one's information is limited to google, one's information is
pretty limited.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
> What the hell are you babbling about?

that you are out of arguments, better: you never had any.

>> But I doubt that you can bring up *good* arguments.
>
> Arguement to what?

well, continue name calling, that's all you can do.

> You are illucid.

whatever.

#m

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
> > What the hell are you babbling about?

> that you are out of arguments, better: you never had any.

> >> But I doubt that you can bring up *good* arguments.
> >
> > Arguement to what?

> well, continue name calling, that's all you can do.

> > You are illucid.

> whatever.

> #m

I finally got part of it; someone from the area that started two world
wars thinks the US is less than peaceful.

So do you make a trip every April to Braunau am Inn to remember your
countryman and all he did for world peace?

The part about "falling off the world" is still gibberish though.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 19, 11:17 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>>
>> m:
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 11:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> writes:
>> >> > They may play those games on a simulator, but most military
>> >> > pilots so value the privilege of flying they do their best not
>> >> > to put it at risk by displaying that kind of judgment.
>>
>> >> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at
>> >> risk. And I suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that
>> >> privilege, which is why it kept its actions (if any) secret. It
>> >> wouldn't do to publicly announce that the pilot got off
>> >> scott-free.
>>
>> > You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
>> > statements
>>
>> Then again , he may not.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> When one's information is limited to google, one's information is
> pretty limited.
>

Well, I'd qualify that by adding that if he's got nothing else..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dallas > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:22:05 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, but on what frequency? Chances are they have no idea what
>>>frequency you're on.
>
>> you dont fly much do you?
>
> Yes, you are correct.. I haven't spent much time flying around the
> Pacific.
>
> So what's the answer? An aircraft carrier in the Hawaiian Islands
> sees a slow unknown target approaching squawking 1200, what frequency
> would they use to contact that target?
>
>

well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get weather or
whatever, and we use it all the time we even think we're in some sort of
sensitve area. Haven't had anyone talk to me yet!


Bertie

[Dallas]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:22:05 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

>>Yeah, but on what frequency? Chances are they have no idea what frequency
>>you're on.

> you dont fly much do you?

Yes, you are correct.. I haven't spent much time flying around the
Pacific.

So what's the answer? An aircraft carrier in the Hawaiian Islands sees a
slow unknown target approaching squawking 1200, what frequency would they
use to contact that target?


--
Dallas

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

schrieb:
> So do you make a trip every April to Braunau am Inn to remember your
> countryman and all he did for world peace?

I *knew* that you're an idiot.

BTW: you lost.

#m

[Dallas]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get weather or
> whatever,

Yeah, ok.. that makes sense. Now I'm ready for that Hawaii trip. :- )


--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> schrieb:
> > So do you make a trip every April to Braunau am Inn to remember your
> > countryman and all he did for world peace?

> I *knew* that you're an idiot.

> BTW: you lost.

Lost what, WWI and WWII?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> How would you have any clue what goes on in the military from down deep
>> in your bunker?
>
> I know that some fighter pilots with ego and judgement problems try to
> terrorize civilian aircraft.
>
>> You haven't a clue how real military engagements work ...
>
> This wasn't a military engagement, despite the pilot's fantasies to the
> contrary.

You are a moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic aka Anthony Atkielski, Moron > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> They may play those games on a simulator, but most military pilots so
>> value the privilege of flying they do their best not to put it at
>> risk by displaying that kind of judgment.
>
> Obviously, one military pilot decided to put his privilege at risk.
> And I suspect the military didn't bother to revoke that privilege,
> which is why it kept its actions (if any) secret. It wouldn't do to
> publicly announce that the pilot got off scott-free.

Wrong again, moron.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:29:00 -0500, Dallas
> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get weather or
>> whatever,
>
>Yeah, ok.. that makes sense. Now I'm ready for that Hawaii trip. :- )

in australia we'd be on the local area frequency.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 20, 9:47*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:29:00 -0500, Dallas
>
> > wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get weather or
> >> whatever,
>
> >Yeah, ok.. that makes sense. *Now I'm ready for that Hawaii trip. *:- )
>
> in australia we'd be on the local area frequency.

Do't you guys monitor 121.5? I thought that was international.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On Jul 20, 9:47*am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:29:00 -0500, Dallas
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get
>> >> weather
> or
>> >> whatever,
>>
>> >Yeah, ok.. that makes sense. *Now I'm ready for that Hawaii trip. *:
> - )
>>
>> in australia we'd be on the local area frequency.
>
> Do't you guys monitor 121.5? I thought that was international.
>

It is. I've flown through Saudi along the southern border of Iraq. Maybe
about 50 miles from it IIRC. Just along the old southern no-fly zone
between the two wars and all we did was monitor 121.5 and watch our
navigation carefully!
France is one country you have to be particulalry careful to monitor.
They're fairly quick to intercept, or so I've been told since it's never
happened to me or anyone I know directly.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
> statements

As soon as the Air Force explains what really happened, I will. Since it
hasn't done so, it obviously has something to hide, and I doubt that it is
flattering to the service or to the pilot.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
> > statements

> As soon as the Air Force explains what really happened, I will. Since it
> hasn't done so, it obviously has something to hide, and I doubt that it is
> flattering to the service or to the pilot.

Pontificating nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[john smith]

In article
>,
wrote:

> Don't you guys monitor 121.5? I thought that was international.

In the USA, post-9/11, pilots were told to always monitor 121.5 MHz.
To the best of my knowledge, that has not been recinded.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
>> statements
>
> As soon as the Air Force explains what really happened, I will. Since
> it hasn't done so, it obviously has something to hide, and I doubt
> that it is flattering to the service or to the pilot.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_5_]]

Anthony, you wouldn't even begin to understand even if they gave you the
information- anyone who thinks they can fly without knowing V-speeds or
understanding how and when to use the rudder belongs an the ground.

Regardless, it won't matter to you anyway, since you don't fly, and it's
obvious why.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 20, 12:30 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
> > statements
>
> As soon as the Air Force explains what really happened, I will. Since it
> hasn't done so, it obviously has something to hide, and I doubt that it is
> flattering to the service or to the pilot.

Explain to you? You are a google limited moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You may wish to investigate further before you make those kinds of
>> statements
>
> As soon as the Air Force explains what really happened, I will. Since
> it hasn't done so, it obviously has something to hide, and I doubt
> that it is flattering to the service or to the pilot.

Given that you've been pontificating for years on how to fly an airplane
and only just recently demonstrated you don't know **** from Shinola about
rudder operation or V speeds, you lack the competence to understand even
the pap published by media, let alone what really happened.

**** off.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Explain to you?

Not to me personally, but to the general public. Since they haven't done
this, it's obvious that they messed up badly, and are too cowardly to admit
it.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Explain to you?

> Not to me personally, but to the general public. Since they haven't done
> this, it's obvious that they messed up badly, and are too cowardly to admit
> it.

I see logic is yet another subject about which you don't know **** from
shinola.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 20, 7:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Explain to you?
>
> Not to me personally, but to the general public. *Since they haven't done
> this, it's obvious that they messed up badly, and are too cowardly to admit
> it.

"Obvious"?

"Cowardly"?

Simply because you don't know how to find information does not mean it
does not exist. The world extends past computer screens, you might
give it a try sometime.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:54:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Jul 20, 9:47*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:29:00 -0500, Dallas
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:12:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> >> well, we monitor 121.5 on box 2 when we're not using it to get weather or
>> >> whatever,
>>
>> >Yeah, ok.. that makes sense. *Now I'm ready for that Hawaii trip. *:- )
>>
>> in australia we'd be on the local area frequency.
>
>Do't you guys monitor 121.5? I thought that was international.

in reality, never.
we have area frequencies dictated by the network of repeaters that air
services uses. most of us only have the one radio.

in 10 years I can only think of once that I dialed up 121.5
and that was to see whether a beacon had gone off in one of the
hangars.

Stealth Pilot

[Jules]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
It was the subject of an
> investigation, not sure what happened with that though.

The Captain got a medal.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> "Obvious"?
>
> "Cowardly"?
>
> Simply because you don't know how to find information does not mean it
> does not exist. The world extends past computer screens, you might
> give it a try sometime.

How about a pointer to this information, then?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > "Obvious"?
> >
> > "Cowardly"?
> >
> > Simply because you don't know how to find information does not mean it
> > does not exist. The world extends past computer screens, you might
> > give it a try sometime.

> How about a pointer to this information, then?

OK, get a job so you have money then you can afford to buy real books
and publications.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> "Obvious"?
>>
>> "Cowardly"?
>>
>> Simply because you don't know how to find information does not mean it
>> does not exist. The world extends past computer screens, you might
>> give it a try sometime.
>
> How about a pointer to this information, then?

Sure. Send me my consulting fee and I'll sell you the pointer.
My services are NOT free, especially to an asshole like you.

[yod-yog+ais]

On 7/21/2008 7:48 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> How about a pointer to this information, then?

Go find it yourself. Stupid people are too lazy to take the
initiative to seek it out for themselves.

[Dave S]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

>
>>
>> Maybe it's "nothing"... after all just a few months ago a pair of
>> Russian
>> TU-95 Bear bombers overflew the USS Nimitz. One of them flew directly
>> over
>> the Nimitz at 2000 feet and no one shot them down.
>
> And just how many weapons do you think were tracking that Bear the whole
> time?

Nobodys gonna blink twice if they splash an airplane from the united
states of Cessna...

Keep in mind that while the bear was overflying our fleet, we'd been
flying nuclear armed bombers just outside their territorial limits for
years.. and until they had developed SAMs that could reach, we'd
violated and overflown their airspace with impunity for years. It was a
game with a KNOWN adversary.

A plane approaching that doesn't respond and is unidentified will be
making a bad gamble. Remember the Vincennes?