Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

I just saw the report on CNN Headline News. I'll say one thing for their
report - it wasn't sensationalized. They just reported the facts and then
went into their next story.

Nice job, CNN.

Harry
PP-ASEL

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
David Gunter ) wrote:

Ugh!
-david

I like this quote from the CNN article:

------------- start quote ------------------------------

Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
flew elsewhere,' Peters said.

------------- end quote --------------------------------


The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
controllers weren't in such a generous mood.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)
www.Rosspilot.com

Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"




www.Rosspilot.com

What else would you expect from "Faux News?"

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) wrote:
Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"


Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant? There's nothing wrong with
reporting the facts even though we may not like to admit that the facts
are the facts.

It sounds like this guy was as dumb as they come, yet the authorities
exercised restraint and didn't blow him out of the sky.

CBS apparently thought he should have been shot down, and then they'd be
running a story about how the government should have exercised restraint
because the guy wasn't a real threat.

As for GA airport security, I must admit that I am disappointed, at
least in some of the airports in my area. Many larger GA fields here
don't even have perimeter fencing, and many of those that do have
operable gates that aren't operating. Some of those airports who have
tried operating the gates have ended up with dead gate motors because
the morons who are using their hangars as personal storage for
everything but an airplane are staking the gates open so that they can
more easily move in and out. The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.


JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message


The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

In article om,
"John T" wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message


The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
field and can prove it then you won't be hassled. "Unreasonable" is
when they start forcing you to go through the "secure" terminal and have
to ride you to your airplane or hangar in an airport vehicle, watch you
extract your airplane and lock the hangar, and depart... and I'm sure
that wouldn't be the worst of it. Bottom line is that if something bad
happens and some news crew goes out to the local airport and finds
missing fence and gates that are wide open, the situation is going to
get overblown.

Oh, yeah, and enforce the terms of the lease that exists, in most cases,
for those who are using an airplane hangar as a U-Store by throwing them
out. One guy around here was actually bold enough to routinely drive an
18 wheeler through the gate, down the taxiways, and up to his T-hangar
so that he could load and unload things. None of those things were ever
aviation-related as far as I could tell, and if he ever had an airplane
in the hangar it certainly wasn't visible to the naked eye.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"John T" wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message


The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
field and can prove it then you won't be hassled.

Your reasonable is totally UNreasonable in my book. For what reason are you
creating a prison like facility? What actual problems are you trying to
solve? I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
fly my plane? My garage does not have continuous surveillence why should
airports? I don't have a fence around my garage why should GA airports?
Can you provide a reference to support your statement that what you suggest
is SUPPOSED to be done at airports?

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Reasonable security would include ....

A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence.

This seems totally unreasonable to me.

The typical small airport I fly into is surrounded by farm
fields. It's a runway, a few dozen hangars, a fuel pump,
and an FBO building which may or may not be occupied by a
business. The fuel may be self serve, or there may be a
plastic-covered sign on it saying something like "call
###-#### for fuel" or even "call police for fuel". There
is typically a 6 button combination lock on the building
(or maybe a lock box holding a key, with a combination lock)
and a note posted saying enter the frequency of some navaid
or nearby tracon. Something someone with an aviation chart
for that area can easily look up, and get in to use the phone
and the restrooms.

At times, the airport is totally deserted. At times, it's
populated by a group of pilots who've known each other for
years if not decades. Fly in more than once and they recognize
you too. Any airplanes on the ramp are transients, because
hangars are quite reasonable in cost or rental.

The airport commission is a bunch of local pilots who take
care of mowing the grass next to the runway and fixing the
runway lights when they go out. Sometimes they get money for
major improvements like runway resurfacing from the state
DOT, but typically they are a low-budget operation.

Just EXACTLY what would "airport badges, perimeter fencing
with gates, and continuous airport surveillance" add to the
security of such an airport?

OTOH I can see a requirement to provide same putting such
airports TOTALLY out of business and putting aviation TOTALLY
out of reach for literally thousands of pilots.

Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here).

SUPPOSED to be done anyway according to whom?

In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)

I'm afraid I see this as an example of the conundrum "why do they
call it 'common sense' when it seems so rare?"

Cheers,
Sydney