Things you cannot say without raising security concerns...

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

john smith writes:

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

Instead of cowering under the bed, you might want to work hard to
protect your freedom of speech. "Watching what you say" essentially
throws that freedom away.


A code you live by, obviously.


Bertie

When asked over the radio what his destination was, the pilot, a 10-year-plus veteran with commercial airlines and private industry, said he preferred not to say.
Mann said that under the circumstances the pilot was not required to give a destination.
“He didn’t say hijack. … He was trying to explain why he didn’t have to give his destination,” Mann said.
“We work in a hostile business environment,” he said, and competitors could try to use such information to steal clients.
The pilot was speaking about a “hostile takeover” of a company, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.
The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard, but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said.

I'd say the authorities did the right thing not to disregard these
comments. If you are the pilot of a small airplane, and an armed
passenger attempts to hijack it (unlikely, but not impossible), you may
want to hint your condition to ATC without giving away to the passenger
that you are alerting them. That way they can be ready when you land.

Granted, this particular set of comments is a bit oblique, but it might
be what the pilot thought would keep the passenger off guard. Then, to
avoid hearing ATC say "are you being hijacked?", change frequencies.
The passenger might know about 7700 - ATC doesn't know whether this is
the case.

Now, an F16 interception is probably the wrong response. But I suspect
it hasn't been thought through.

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

Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
ring right. If I were overflying a military
base, the last thing I'd do is engage in a
conversation about competitive advantages
and hostile workplaces. If, for some un-
fathomable reason, I didn't want to reveal
my final destination, I'd simply give an
en-route airport. If I felt bad about the
borderline deception, I'd stop at the en-
route airport.

DOUBLE TAKE
Pilot's talk of business triggers fighter escort
Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:50 AM

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- F-16s intercepted a small plane after officials
misinterpreted a phrase uttered by the pilot as his aircraft flew over
military airspace: hostile takeover.

The pilot was talking about business, the plane's owner said. But a
frantic air-traffic controller couldn't confirm that because the pilot
had turned off his radio, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County
sheriff's office.

Within minutes, federal authorities scrambled the fighter jets to
intercept the plane Monday evening just outside of Oklahoma City. It was
escorted to the Clay County airport.

Once the plane was on the ground, more than a dozen armed federal agents
and tactical deputies surrounded it. Federal authorities, who
interviewed the pilot for two hours, said Tuesday that there was no
threat to anyone and no charges would be filed.

The plane's owner, Dr. Kenneth E. Mann, said the pilot was heading back
to Kansas City after leaving him in Oklahoma, where Mann is a visiting
physician at several hospitals. Neither he nor authorities would
identify the pilot.

Authorities said the pilot was flying over Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma.

When asked what his destination was, the pilot said he preferred not to
say because competitors could use such information to steal clients.
Mann said the pilot was concerned because he works "in a hostile
business environment."

"Mistakes happen," Mann said, "and in the times we live in after 9/11,
it's better to overreact than not react at all."

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Jun 14, 12:58 pm, john smith wrote:
Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

Yesterday, a single engine GA pilot was intercepted, forced to land
and was greeted by 20 federal agents. As he was overflying a
military base, he was communicating with the controllers. When
queried as to his destination, he responded that he could not
disclose that information because he was employed in a hostile work
environment and that disclosing the location could give his
employers competition a business advantage. It seems the controller
only heard the word "hostile" and immediately notified the security
apparatus.

Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

Are you serious?

If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.

What surprises me is that ATC is falling for this too. In our local
area, we routinely 'shoot an approach into Wright Patterson AFB'.

Is there anything in the first paragraph that John wrote that says he showed
up with a crew, camera or light?


But, I have never been asked by TSA why I was traveling. Customs yes, TSA
never.

tjd wrote:
On Jun 14, 4:01 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Without casting doubts on your accuracy,
I'd have to say that the story just doesn't
ring right.

It sounds silly, but nevertheless is apparently true:

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/148115.html


OK, Now I understand what happened. ATC didn't understand what was said and
couldn't contact the pilot to clear it up.

"The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard,
but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said."

The worst thing you could say is: I am a friend of Anthony Atkielski, aka
MXSMANIC.

john smith wrote:
Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for
honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for
visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot."

Yet another overblown internet legend:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/31..._that_tsa.html

Andrew Sarangan wrote in news:1181848354.174171.196960
@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

If a crew shows up with their cameras and lights and say they want to
'shoot', it must take someone with a poor command of English and some
paranoia to think that they meant 'shoot to kill'.

Actually, your description of "who it takes" accurately matches many TSA
agents that I have observed in my travels.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
news
The worst thing you could say is: I am a friend of Anthony Atkielski, aka
MXSMANIC.

That would not cause any action against you. You'd simply be disregarded as
a pranker, because everyone knows he HAS no friends!
Crash Lander
--
http://straightandlevel1973.spaces.live.com/
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!

"El Maximo" wrote in message
news
"john smith" wrote in message
...


Be careful what you say and to whom you say it, it is likely to be
interpreted out of context.

When my son was in pre-school, I showed him a trick where you stand in a
doorway and press your arms against the doorframe for a minute. After a
minute is done, relax your arms, and step out of the doorway. Your arms
will begin to rise.

The next day in school, he told his teacher "My father made me move my
warms when I didn't want to".

Two weeks ago, I went to a paintball range with another son. The next day
in Spanish class they were discussing the past preterit tense. When asked
what he was doing at 6:30 the previous evening, he replied "I was shooting
my father's boss".

When my daughter was going into high school, it fell to me to take her to
the doctor for her innoculations. As it was, she had to have two of them.

For here being brave, I promised to stop at a frozen custard stand on the
way home.

Shocked hell out of the counter attendant when I said she'd "...just got
shots", of which I suspect she missed the last "s"..