Another Intercept, but this time it's different

On 27 May 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "joe" wrote in
.com::


its time to throw the tea in to the bay

It's sure beginning to look that way.

The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...
On 27 May 2005 17:57:59 -0700, "joe" wrote in
.com::


its time to throw the tea in to the bay

It's sure beginning to look that way.

The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?



A massive fly in somewhere...

What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?
A massive fly in somewhere...


I remember suggesting something like this after a few beers recently. I
even suggested a location.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

There is a reason why you never hear about airliners busting the ADIZ.

What would be an effective course of action for pilots to take in
getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?

Is creating oversized restricted areas a knee-jerk reaction to something
they can't control? Agreed.

On the other hand, why is it such a big deal? If you never fly in the area,
don't worry about it. If you do have to go through or near it, get all the
facts, be organized, be aware of your position and do what you are supposed
to do. They are not randomly intercepting planes just because they are GA
aircraft.


--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Mike W." wrote in message
...

There is a reason why you never hear about airliners busting the ADIZ.
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

Yes, there is a very good reason you seldom hear of an air carrier busting
the ADIZ or TFR's, .... ATC.
There is always at least two qualified folks in front, one of which has an
ATP, they are under positive control, they only fly places where they have
been route checked and they generally have better equipment.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 09:13:32 -0400, "Mike W."
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
The current security policy fails to address the issue of the proven
threatening aircraft, airliners, and imposes lethal consequences for
benign GA flights. Is that the best they can do?

Is creating oversized restricted areas a knee-jerk reaction to something
they can't control? Agreed.

On the other hand, why is it such a big deal?

Because acceptance of these lethal shoot-down pseudo-security policies
by airmen can appear as tacit endorsement, it sends the wrong message
to the TSA. Unless we want to seem more of this lethal, but
ineffective, philosophy directed toward airmen by their government, we
should protest loudly and often, IMO.

wrote:

I know we can not put much faith in the story's from
the media, but if this is even close to the facts, it is rediculous.

Why? We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
result in interceptions.

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.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02::

We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
result in interceptions.

I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02::

We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
result in interceptions.

I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.


You haven't?!?

Hope you don't have any nuclear power plants in your area! We have one
just south of here..You can cruise by it if you want, but start doing
circles above it and you are likely to get a visit from the FBI

--
Chris Schmelzer, MD
Capt, 110th Fighter Michigan ANG
University of Michigan Hospitals
Ann Arbor, MI

On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:03:42 -0400, Chris Schmelzer
wrote in ::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sat, 28 May 2005 02:00:55 GMT, George Patterson
wrote in rhQle.2245$zb.131@trndny02::

We've been repeatedly warned that loitering around sites like this will
result in interceptions.

I have seen no such warnings. There have been warnings not to loiter
over nuclear facilities and open air assemblies, but I'm not aware of
any warnings against loitering outside Restricted airspace.


You haven't?!?

Hope you don't have any nuclear power plants in your area! We have one
just south of here..You can cruise by it if you want, but start doing
circles above it and you are likely to get a visit from the FBI

I believe George was referring to Edwards Air Force Base, not nuclear
plants.