Mandatory Flight Plans???

john smith wrote:
Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
Baron.


That was unintentional. The F-4 guy was trying to identify the aircraft; not
run into it. And he sure as hell didn't shoot at it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

NW_Pilot writes:

Wow what a weird conversation today!! A few reps / attorneys in my district
were at the bar were talking about the latest GA crash in NYC so I had to
listen in so I bought one a drink at started to mingle a but. They were
talking about making flight plans mandatory and mandatory VFR reporting
points/routs in large city's & near schools.

No surprise here.

By this time I had to interrupt
them and tell them how the voting general aviation public would frown upon
them rules....they were not assertive and were not willing to listen and
told me that the general aviation part of the public is to small to make a
sway in this argument ...

They are right.

... and they will do what ever that they decide they think
is right for the rest (majority) of the public.

More specifically, they'll do whatever they want and rationalize it as
being for the public good.

These guys had no idea about what general aviation really was until I
brought up that the small jets that they fly in for their spur of the moment
trips is considered general aviation then they started to listen a bit.(yea
because now it concerned them)

Yup.

I explained how it would make it more time
consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already stressed controllers
by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic in to the system
for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job and they would
have to deal with it!

Did you tell them that they'd have to plan their trips a lot further
ahead if flight plans were mandatory?

Gawd I hope the U.S. don't end up like the European bureaucracy when it
comes to VFR flying!!!!!!!

Bureaucracies never shrink on their own.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

john smith writes:

Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
Baron.

Ramming and shooting down are two different things.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

Ramming and shooting down are two different things.


Brilliant!

Of the idea dying? None, of a good airplane destroyed, a
few jobs in Wichita or Independence building a new one. Of
a feeling of regret on the part of the AF pilot who was just
following orders, terrible. Of Congressman, it would
depend, Congress might do another "ELT law" and really cause
problems. You'll have to consider the rest of the
possibilities on your own.



"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:6wnZg.12659$XX2.5451@dukeread04...
| Running with no lights and "refusing to answer" radio
calls,
| it would be shot down and three Congressmen would be
killed
| returning from golf in the Bahamas.
|
| The idea died.
|
| And the downside is...what?
|
|
|

"john smith" wrote in message
...

Already happened. A Baron returning from the Burmuda was rammed by an
F-4 in IMC off North Carolina in the 1980's, killing all onboard the
Baron.


"Rammed" implies intentional. As I recall it was a midair collision during
an attempt at identification when the Baron turned in to the path of the
F-4.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Rammed" implies intentional.

Not necessarily. The dictionary uses this example sentence [1], "The
car went out of control and rammed the truck." Yes, often the context
that "ram" is used implies that it's intentional, but is it not wrong
to use it the other way.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ram

"Bucky" wrote in message
oups.com...

Not necessarily. The dictionary uses this example sentence [1], "The
car went out of control and rammed the truck." Yes, often the context
that "ram" is used implies that it's intentional, but is it not wrong
to use it the other way.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ram


My message applied to it's use here.

Mxsmanic wrote:
NW_Pilot writes:
I explained how it would make it more time
consuming to the pilots and also, over load the already stressed controllers
by dumping hundreds or even thousands of extra VFR traffic in to the system
for them to deal with. They responded that it's their job and they would
have to deal with it!

Did you tell them that they'd have to plan their trips a lot further
ahead if flight plans were mandatory?

I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
overloaded.

A lot of people plan and file a flight at the last minute, or even
after take-off.

Kev

"Kev" wrote:

I don't see why, unless you think the FAA's computers would get
overloaded.

A lot of people plan and file a flight at the last minute, or even
after take-off.

And I suspect that the vast majority of GA flights are not on flight
plans.

Ron Lee