Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

Paul kgyy wrote:
True to the rugged pioneer spirit of our great country, DC cowered for
cover again as a Cessna violated the no-fly zone. Fighter jets were
scrambled to deal with this imminent threat to the security of our
nation.

Make light of it all you want, but it's these moron pilots who are going to
put an end to YOUR pastime.

Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna approaches,
but that's not the point.

AOPA or the like should help make examples of these pilots, in a big public
way. "We won't tolerate ignorance among our own and suggest immediate
revocation of their flying privileges".

It may have been semi-excusable to invade DC airspace a couple years ago,
but no one should be in the air without knowing good and well where they're
flying now.

Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna
approaches,
but that's not the point.

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.

Not when its possible for a C150 to
carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.

Wouldn't it be easier just to drive there?

Mike Granby wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier just to drive there?

Yes, but shipping it might be an even better choice now that I think on it.

- Andrew

Sport Pilot wrote:

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.

One can carry much more, without the problem of dodging fighters, in a
minivan.

When DC is closed off to all vehicular traffic, I'll believe that someone is
serious about security and I'll accept what's being done to GA there.
Absent that, this is a joke and we're the butt of that joke.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
When DC is closed off to all vehicular traffic, I'll believe that someone is
serious about security and I'll accept what's being done to GA there.
Absent that, this is a joke and we're the butt of that joke.

- Andrew


And while we are at it, howe about securing the borders? If you can't
secure your borders you have no country.

Good point. I only fly radio control models right now. There has been
some restriction of their use during large international events and
around Washington. The same thing has been pointed out about them, but
it makes no differance.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message

When DC is closed off to all vehicular traffic,

....they'll walk in or blow up the subway if they want.

It's really ridiculous. London endured the Blitz. America has got to stop
living in fear.

-c

gatt wrote:

It's really ridiculous. London endured the Blitz. America has got to stop
living in fear.

Not a good example. Small planes have been banned from the airspace over London
for decades.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Sport Pilot wrote:


Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.


One can carry much more, without the problem of dodging fighters, in a
minivan.

When DC is closed off to all vehicular traffic, I'll believe that someone is
serious about security and I'll accept what's being done to GA there.
Absent that, this is a joke and we're the butt of that joke.

- Andrew

Yeah, when people ask me what I think of the FRZ (used to be TFR) I
always say if they want to "make the skies safe over DC" they have to
ban ALL AIR TRAFFIC within a reasonable distance, like 200 miles. This
would of course close Dulles, Washington, Baltimore, Richmond,
Philadelphia, etc. Folks always say "They CAN'T do THAT!". To which I
respond that I agree, but putting a silly band-aid, do nothing policy on
small aircraft in the DC area is just as silly.

I'm sure more damage could be inflicted with a rental truck in downtown
DC than with a 172 (or even a Citation)if desired and they aren't going
to close down DC to motor vehicles. People get upset when they do the
truck checks on Capitol Hill!

Margy