Another Intercept, but this time it's different

"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...
Yeah... Did not think about that fact...


On Sat, 28 May 2005 01:59:38 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:

wrote:
According to the story, which we all know how accurate those can be, he
was
"NEAR" 18000, I read that as 17,999 and not 18,001. Benefit of the
doubt
to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.

This is Edwards AFB. The accuracy of military radar is along the lines of
"He's
at 18,027' 1", Captain."

They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11" tall
and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."

"Matt Barrow"
They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11"
tall
and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."


I feel for the guy - everyone wants him to keep clear of their restricted
zones!


Montblack

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
[snip]
The twin-engine Aero Commander plane was spotted flying in the
high desert north of Los Angeles for several hours during the
afternoon at about 18,000 feet and could not be identified or
contacted by the Federal Aviation Administration, agency spokesman
Donn Walker said.


Possible radio problems in a 150 - ok. Harder to swallow when it's an Aero
Commander.

OT - Speaking of Aero Commanders, I saw the Pella Windows corporate jet a
few weeks ago at the Pella, Iowa airport open house. Talked with the crew.
It's an Aero Commander jet. Israeli company converts them - see link.

http://tinyurl.com/a7duk
Israel IAI-1124A Westwind


Montblack

"Montblack" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow"
They can also say, "The pilot is a male Caucasian, 34 years old, 5'11"
tall
and 205 lbs, married with two kids...not getting any from his old lady."


I feel for the guy - everyone wants him to keep clear of their restricted
zones!


Hide the wim'men!!

"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getting this onerous pseudo-security policy rescinded?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...

Matt Barrow wrote:

"joe" wrote in message
oups.com...


Larry Dighera wrote:

Is this intercept of an aircraft that hadn't breached restricted
airspace a reaction to the rather late intercept of the Cessna 150 in
DC?

On 27 May 2005 15:04:06 GMT, wrote in
::


The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite

office

in Lancaster, Eimiller said.

There doesn't seem to have been probable cause to divert this flight
nor detain the pilot and his passengers. Also, why would the pilot
submit to interrogation in this instance if he knew he hadn't entered
Restricted airspace? I suppose that if he didn't, our government
would have labeled him an Enemy Combatant, and taken him Syria for
further interrogation. :-(

This government 'security' activity just keeps getting curiouser and
curiouser. Bureaucratic fear and overreaction are leading to
citizens' complete loss of civil rights. Appalling.


What's also appalling.... Last night there was another ADIZ incursion.
Seems a fellow pilot skirted the eastern edge flying north from norfolk
va area. The F-15's intercepted him forced him to land and handcuffed
him in front of his two small children.... this is bull****... The TSA
is out of control.

its time to throw the tea in to the bay


Or it's time to kick these bozo's asses that can't fly without flirting with
"danger".

I'd say both. No excuse for dumb pilots, but also no excuse for many of
our "security" restrictions these days either.


Matt

"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....

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.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:



Or it's time to kick these bozo's asses that can't fly without flirting
with
"danger".

I'd say both. No excuse for dumb pilots, but also no excuse for many of
our "security" restrictions these days either.

Given that there was, overall, merely and uproar resulting from these
episodes, would you rather they over-react, or under-react? Finding the
exactly right balance is not something humans seem to gravitate to,
especially bureaucracies.

Remember, 9/11 was Bush's fault for not acting sooner, but he would have
caught hell for anything other than appointing a study commission.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Remember, 9/11 was Bush's fault for not acting sooner,

wow.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule