Another ADIZ violation?

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was taught to rock my wings coming in to a landing in a controlled
tower when/if my radio was out. :^) When I started flying helos, I
have often wondered how the ATC was gonna be able to see me rock the
rotors...


When I got my helicopter rating I asked my instructor that very question.
His answer was get where the tower can see you, hover and, if possible,
flash landing lights.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:17:46 GMT, GS
wrote in : :

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk"
wrote in . com::
I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
it means you have no radio...
Can you cite the regulation that supports that?

I doubt it is a regulation. In fact, I don't know what it is. AOPA
has it on their website.

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf

[snip intercept procedures]

Unfortunately, there is nothing at that link that supports Mr.
Chaisone's assertion. But then he lacks an airman certificate ...

It's in the AIM 5-6-4 (Intercepting Signals)

George
If you request flight following, can you "slip the surly bonds of earth"?

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:17:46 GMT, GS wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 29 Dec 2005 12:22:55 -0800, "Flyingmonk"
wrote in . com::
I wonder if the boys with the guns knows that when you rock your wing
it means you have no radio...
Can you cite the regulation that supports that?

I doubt it is a regulation. In fact, I don't know what it is. AOPA
has it on their website.

http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf


in very short:

intercepter: rocks wings to say you've been intercepted.
interceptee: rocks wings and follows that plane to a new heading

how does the ADIZ-watchers distinguish an accident from malicious intent?

Heading towards an airport and entering a standard pattern would weigh
heavily in my view.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It's possible you didn't know that because it's NOT what it means.

GS wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
GS wrote:
No, I didn't say that. What I said (or at least meant by "non-event")
was that it's not an emergency. Emergencies require immediate action.
Abnormal situations like electrical failures in benign conditions
require assessing the situation calmly and taking the time to come up
with a plan which minimizes the risks.

ok, we're saying the same thing just implying and inferring the
wrong thing. BTW, on my Archer checklist an Electrical
failure is listed under "Emergency Checklists." I would say
that an electrical failure requires *immediate* action. That
action doesn't necessarily mean an emergency descent to landing
Ok, enough. We're thinking the same thing.

Busting the ADIZ is more than just a technical violation, it's an
action which involves real, physical, risks. You're going to end up
flying close formation with high performance aircraft with whom you
cannot communicate. How much training do you have performing that
maneuver?

Not much. I wonder how much training they have intercepting an Archer
in slow flight with the stall horn going off at 52 knots, I wonder what
they would do. ;-)

My guess is they would interpret it as a deliberate attempt to avoid
being intercepted and be very unhappy about that. These are not
people to be playing games with. As long as can keep them convinced
that you're just an idiot who's lost, they'll watch and wait. But, if
somehow you manage to convince them that you really are a threat,
things might change. Remember that emotionally disturbed man just a
couple of weeks ago who got shot dead by air marshals?

I suspect the pair of F-16's would take up an overhead holding pattern
while the blackhask helicopters moved in for close escort and followed
you to wherever you land, at which point you would be met by large
numbers of armed people in uniform, and with absolutely no sense of
humor about stuff like this. Personally, I've never been forced to
lay face down on the runway while humorless men pointed automatic
weapons at my head. I've never had my certificate revoked either.
Both of those are experiences I think I'd rather avoid. But that's
just me.

There are examples of such intercepts which have resulted
in mid-airs. There was one a few years back off the NJ coast which
resulted in the airliner's crew performing a panic dive in response to
multiple TCAS RA's, causing serious injury to people in the cabin.

what year was this? Do you have a report? I'm just wondering
about this as I never heard of it. I heard of a a military jet flying
out of I think virigina getting vectored near a commercial jet causing
a near miss. I don't recall any injuries from that though.

I searched the NTSB data base, but can't find it. I do remember that
it was a botched airspace handoff between McGuire approch and either
New York Approch or New York Center. McGuire thought they still owned
the airspace for a training exercise, and New York thought it had been
handed back to them.

Peter Clark wrote:
As long as he's still squawking the code, I would think turn around
and land at nearest suitable field (squawk 7600 for a minute or two
and then go back to assigned code?) should work to remain within the
limits of both requirements. Course, I wouldn't turn *toward* the
city or FRZ, but if there's an airfield right near me?

If you squawk 7600, you should remain on the frequency and not change
back to the original code. Same for 7700 and 7500. I think the
changing back to the original code was the SOP from years ago.

Gerald

"Roy Smith" wrote

My guess is they would interpret it as a deliberate attempt to avoid
being intercepted and be very unhappy about that. These are not
people to be playing games with. As long as can keep them convinced
that you're just an idiot who's lost, they'll watch and wait. But, if
somehow you manage to convince them that you really are a threat,
things might change.

They could do a 600MPH *close* flyby, 50 feet above your altitude, directly
in your flight path and perpendicular to the flight path, doing a hard pull
up, right when they got to you. Can anyone say wake turbulence?
--
Jim in NC

It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.

This would include folks such as Dudley. At this point I would like to
point out that Dudley does not even have an ATP. He has a COMMERCIAL
certificate, with multi-engine limited to center line thrust. Yes,
that's correct -- he can't even fly a "real" multi-engine airplane, and
was not good enough to get an ATP. And people here take his advice as a
gospel.

Lynne

"Lynne" wrote in message
oups.com...

It should be a requirement to have a minimum of an ATP prior to ADIZ
penetration. When you think about it, you don't hear of ATP's busting
into the ADIZ, it's always the private pilots.

Hmm, I wonder what type of rating the gov of Kentucky had, when he busted
the ADIZ, and caused an evacuation? More than PP, I would think. Possibly
an ATP.

This would include folks such as Dudley. At this point I would like to
point out that Dudley does not even have an ATP. He has a COMMERCIAL
certificate, with multi-engine limited to center line thrust. Yes,
that's correct -- he can't even fly a "real" multi-engine airplane, and
was not good enough to get an ATP. And people here take his advice as a
gospel.

Oh, not that again. Could it be that military planes and other HIGH
performance aerobatic planes don't need multi tickets? Yep.

Lynne, time to put up or shut up. Lay down your thousand bucks.

We know you will not, cause everyone here knows you are a lieing fraud,
constantly misrepresenting who and what you are and are not.

Try not to look foolish. Do that by keeping your mouth closed, and your
fingers away from the keyboard.
--
Jim in NC

Lynne