A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another Intercept, but this time it's different



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 27th 05, 04:04 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Another Intercept, but this time it's different

I am sure we are all getting tired of the constant topics about intercepts,
but I feel this one is a little different.

Now it appears they are intercepting small planes for getting close to
restricted airspace. That's right, not busting through the airspace, but
getting close to it. I know we can not put much faith in the story's from
the media, but if this is even close to the facts, it is rediculous. So
what the heck...


Full story is below...
and here is the actual link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157833,00.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Small Plane Intercepted Near Air Force Base

PALMDALE, Calif. A small plane that repeatedly ventured close to
restricted air space at Edwards Air Force Base was intercepted by two F-15
fighter jets Thursday and escorted to a local airport. The FBI was
interviewing the pilot and a passenger, officials said.

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.

The plane approached restricted air space several times and the FAA
notified Western Air Defense, which scrambled military jets, officials
said.

The aircraft was escorted to Palmdale Airport, FBI spokeswoman Laura
Eimiller said. It wasn't immediately clear why the pilot didn't respond or
what the plane was doing near the air base.

The pilot and passenger were being interviewed at an FBI satellite office
in Lancaster, Eimiller said.

A person who answered the phone at Palmdale Airport declined to comment.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com
Ads
  #2  
Old May 27th 05, 04:52 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #3  
Old May 27th 05, 06:00 PM
aluckyguess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that was
why they detained him. I hope they at least paid for his fuel.
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.




  #4  
Old May 27th 05, 06:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

"aluckyguess" wrote:
I thought he went above 18000 feet and not talking to approach.and that
was why they detained him. I hope they at least paid for his fuel.


--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com
  #5  
Old May 27th 05, 07:03 PM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
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.


Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.

Benefit of the doubt
to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.


Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they give
you.



  #6  
Old May 27th 05, 07:29 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.

Benefit of the doubt
to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.


Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they
give you.


Was not aware there was any buffer, but not surprised I guess. My point
being that noone "in the know" has said he busted the 18K mark nor did not
stray into the restricted airspace. So... why scramble F15's to intercept?
Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
time, granted I don't loiter, but noone says I can't loiter outside
restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
down.

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com
  #7  
Old May 27th 05, 11:44 PM
gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message news:20050527142925.731

So... why scramble F15's to intercept?
Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
time, granted I don't loiter, but noone says I can't loiter outside
restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
down.


They didn't shoot him down.

Last time I was between Edwards and Palmdale (pre-9/11) they had strange
security going on.
First clue were the submachine guns at the Palmdale gate.
Second clue was the AC-130 gunship orbitting Edwards.
Third clue was the strange bare-aluminum aircraft with fighter escort moving
from Palmdale to Edwards...
Fourth clue was the X-32 sitting on the flightline when we got there, and
the NASA/Dryden people warning us not to look too much "that direction."

Makes me wonder if there might have been a test underway at Edwards or
something.

-c


  #8  
Old May 28th 05, 01:57 AM
joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

joey

  #9  
Old May 28th 05, 02:12 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


Class A starts at 18000, but the buffer is 500 feet.

Benefit of the doubt
to him, especially given the accuracy of the equipment.


Bust an altitude by 500 feet and see how much benefit of the doubt they
give you.


Was not aware there was any buffer, but not surprised I guess. My point
being that noone "in the know" has said he busted the 18K mark nor did not
stray into the restricted airspace. So... why scramble F15's to

intercept?

If someone keeps coming to my front door and acting suspicious, I'd call the
cops and not waiting until...


Sounds like someone is loosing it. I fly near restricted airspace all the
time, granted I don't loiter,


BINGO!

but noone says I can't loiter outside
restricted airspace. Guess I need to revisit where I fly less I be shot
down.


Not only WHERE but how high...




  #10  
Old May 28th 05, 02:13 AM
Matt Barrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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".




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS9 Time Zone Files in BETA Test DDT Simulators 3 April 5th 04 06:06 PM
FS2002 Clock Time Chris Simulators 0 November 6th 03 08:02 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap tim liverance Military Aviation 0 August 18th 03 12:18 AM
Best Software and Hardware for Turn Area Task? Snead1 Soaring 29 August 13th 03 04:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.