Pilot runs out of fuel waiting for security clearance

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...

Well, in fact I think it's pretty clear that the ADIZ would NOT prevent
someone bent on harm from violating it and completing their missing prior to
interception. Especially if they were flying an airplane capable of actual
harm.

Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

I have to admit that, as bad as traffic *seems* here in Seattle, driving
around here isn't anything like driving around DC, LA, NYC, or Boston. I
have the most experience in DC, but have driven in all of those metro areas.
Even without traffic, in DC it was "no big deal" to travel 45 to 60 minutes
to get somewhere (driving from one DC suburb to another one on the other
side of the Beltway), and traffic could easily add 30 to 60 minutes to that
(longer if you were dealing with construction or an accident).

The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC even
without traffic.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Like airliners which still have relative unfettered access to the area.

Exactly. Two years later, I still haven't gotten over the absurdity of
restricting the airplanes that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks,
while the airplanes that are the most dangerous were back up and flying
almost immediately. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

The nearest ADIZ-free airports are at least an hour and a half from DC
even
without traffic.

Well, I wasn't portraying DC's traffic with the intent to justify DC area
residents driving to peripheral, unrestricted airports. Hopefully no one
took it that way. Even if people ARE used to driving 60 to 90 minutes just
to get anywhere, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to send them that far so
they can avoid the unreasonable restrictions that exist there in DC.

Pete

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
So who *should* we vote for? Many on the left and the moderate left
(i.e. most Democratic candidates) see GA planes as toys for the rich
(i.e. *not* their constituency), and likely would have absolutely no
problem doing even more against our interests. What choice do we have?

I don't know. The best I've come up with so far is to just keep the
politicians in regular rotation. The less time any individual one spends in
office, the less damage they can do. Each new president spends a lot of
their initial time in office undoing the work the previous president did, so
that helps a bit. Who knows? Maybe a new Democrat president would disband
the Department of Homeland Security out of spite? (Yeah, I know...fat
chance. I can dream though).

I agree that, with respect to aviation, I don't see the Democrats being any
different from the Republicans (nor do I see them being that much different
with respect to many other things). But I know I'm not going to vote for
the current administration, and until they fix the way we vote, that leaves
no other rational choice other than to vote for "the other guy", whoever
that winds up being.

Come on Pete. As much as we complain, how much is really different
from September 1, 2001? Looking at a graphical TFR map of the US, it
appears that well over 99.9% of US airspace is *not* restricted any
more than it was 3 years ago. Stadium TFRs? Sucks for banner
towers....pretty meaningless for the rest of us.

I don't know how you can say that. Any TFR is an impediment to navigation,
and the stadium TFRs are going to be near metro areas that already have
plenty of other impediments to navigation to deal with anyway. Any
impediment to navigation is just that: an impediment. That's not a good
thing, and I'd hardly call it meaningless.

Beyond that, as one of the people who IS affected, I find your "it doesn't
affect me" attitude pretty asinine. I hope you remember your current
position when the current thinking continues unabated and eventually DOES
affect you. It's only a matter of time.


Airports? Of the
thousands of public use airports in the US, how many have severe
restrictions on them that were not there before President Bush took
office? Maybe a dozen? Two dozen, at most?

First of all, I'm sure it's more than two dozen. Secondly, you are
forgetting that the airports most likely to be affected are also the most
likely to be the busiest, since the restrictions tend to appear in the more
populated areas.

[...] So what if the stadium TFR
doesn't really do anything? If it makes the public more comfortable,
I'm willing to accept that.

How far are you willing to go? The public would be MOST comfortable if you
were not permitted to fly at all.

IMHO, restricting one person's freedom for the purpose of making "the
public" or any other person "more comfortable" is just plain dumb. Being
willing to accept such restrictions is also just plain dumb. Do the math.

[...] Especially when compared to how things could *easily* be.

It can always be worse. How in the world is that in any way relevant, or
justification for the current situation?

Pete

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".

The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots. Perhaps
airline-style security measures (metal detectors, bomb-sniffers, etc.) at
all FBOs for Ramp Access. Or PERMANENT restrictions on flying over
populated areas.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
Standard emotional reaction to anything that bothers a person,
regardless of the merits.

What merits? Placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a
"merit".

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure, they
will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security measures
that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are necessary.
GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures being
implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in any case,
the worry that those extra security measures might be implemented in no way
makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit". It
is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who thinks
there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate an ignorant
populus is a fool.

Pete

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice. Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
...
The merit is CRYSTAL clear to me.

You have a funny definition of "crystal".

If the general public is not lead to believe that they are secure,
they will demand REAL security measures to protect them from GA
pilots.

You are seriously confused. It isn't the nature of the security
measures that makes them absurd. It's the question of whether they are
necessary. GA is simply not a threat that warrants the kind of measures
being implemented. MORE security measures would be more absurd, and in
any case, the worry that those extra security measures might be
implemented in no way makes the existing ones any less absurd.

I repeat: placating an ignorant populus does not qualify as a "merit".
It is a foolish reason to implement security measures, and anyone who
thinks there's merit in security measures implemented solely to placate
an ignorant populus is a fool.

Pete

"Judah" wrote in message
...
A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

I'm not arguing that potential for harm doesn't exist. But why should
aircraft be restricted when numerous other methods of delivering 500 pounds
of explosives to any crowded area still exist?

We live in a free society, and with that freedom comes some risks. People
need to come to terms with that. The solution is NOT to impose meaningless
and unfair restrictions. After all, even if the Cessna was a more
significant risk than the numerous others that exist (and it's not) the
current restrictions do nothing to address that risk.

Perhaps you don't believe that someone could fly a jet airliner into a
skyscraper and take it down completely, either.

Most people didn't, until it happened - twice.

"Most people"? What the hell are you talking about? "Most people" didn't
even bother to think about it. Anyone who DID bother to think about it
should have recognized that that WAS a significant security risk. Even if
they didn't predict the collapse of the buildings, the potential for harm
was obvious.

Now, most people are on a
high-security kick. You can say what you want about ignorance and
foolishness, but I think you should wake up and face reality a minute.

No, YOU and the other idiots who feel that these security measures make any
sense need to wake up and face reality. Not for a minute, not for an hour,
but for their entire lives. The security you apparently desire is simply
impossible to obtain, and in the process of the futile attempts to obtain
it, you are undermining the very substance of what made our country so
great.

Absurd or not, those TFRs are probably saving you from much more serious
hassles and inconveniences.

Again, you are full of it. All these TFRs accomplish is to move me one step
closer to "much more serious hassles and inconveniences". The camel's nose
is under the tent. You are incredibly naive if you think that imposing the
current restrictions in any way help prevent us from suffering even greater
indignities.

Pete

In article ,
Judah wrote:

A suicide bomber in Jerusalem, with 30 pounds of explosives strapped to
his belt, can murder and injure dozens of innocent people in restaurants,
night clubs, markets, and bus stations. You don't believe that 500 pounds
of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential security
threat?

500 pounds of explosives in a suicide-bomber's Cessna is a potential
security threat, but so is 30 pounds of explosives strapped to a belt.
Are you advocating we strip-search every person entering a public
building? If not, why single out the Cessna?

--
Paul Baechler

More like, "Hey - your sacrifice is allowing me to be relatively
unaffected! Thanks, bro! But don't go waking up the TSA guys or they might
make it worse for ALL of us, dude!!"

This whole thing is either going to blow over in another year or two, or
it's going to get worse. Do you think that you are going to be able to do
anything about it if the TSA decides to put in Permanent Restrictions that
ARE effective at protecting the country from a GA Suicide Bomber?

Sydney Hoeltzli wrote in news:3F0C2462.1040103
@swbell.net:

"Hey, doesn't affect me, bro! Why should I sweat unreasonable
restictions on YOUR freedom, ain't bothering ME?"

Standard reaction from non-pilots. Sad to see it from a fellow
flier.

Cheers,
Sydney