Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

The errant pilots were enroute to an airshow in NC. At least they
didn't miss the excellent demonstration of the Blackhawk and F16s!

Martin,

it shows how damn stupid we human beeings really are.


It's still not funny for me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Threats don't do any good unless one believes they will be carried out.
Shooting down one Cessna would wake up a lot of pilots.

Perhaps, but it would likely wake-up the poor unfortunate people below as
shards of the wreckage sliced through their homes and spawned fires.
Frankly, I'm glad that we don't have 'Barney Fife' on the fire button of
those fighters - cooler heads will always prevail. Bad enough our
leadership got us bogged down in that 'new Vietnam' in the Middle East.

Would also give
the public a "sense of security," however false it may be.

So they would feel more secure knowing that airplane parts and flaming
aviation fuel & oil will be raining upon their heads after the little Cessna
is shot down... and then you find out it was totally harmless intrusion and
you've just killed people on the ground and destroyed property? I think you
better re-read your post. ;o)

I would rather see a harsh administrative penalty, maybe in the form of a
temporary suspension of the CFI's credentials while he gets retested by an
examiner on navigation in the Washington ADIZ.

I was surprised to learn that the flight was manned by a CFI along with his
student (they were going to an airshow). I should think that the CFI should
at least be required to demonstrate their navigation skills in a partial
checkride. I mean,,, geez!?



--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Dylan Smith wrote:

I think the Canadians might have also noticed the torrent of illegals
entering their country first.



In fact they have noticed this and are tightening up their ship.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Martin,

it shows how damn stupid we human beeings really are.


It's still not funny for me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


What I want to know is where were all those ninnies running to. Do they
just go out into the streets and run around in circles bumping into each
other?

Ron Natalie wrote:

The WASHINGTON Sectional and Terminal Area charts for over
a year now depict both the ADIZ and the FRX. The FRZ as well
as the expanded prohibited area over Camp David are displayed
on a white background. This is a depiction used nowhere else
in US charting.

They show the ADIZ and FRZ, but not a "no-fly zone". A "no-fly zone" is
what we imposed on Iraq. Prohibited airspace, like P-40, could be
considered a "no-fly zone", but neither the ADIZ nor FRZ are such entities.

Allowing media outlets to perpetuate the myth of a "no-fly zone" gives the
non-flying public the impression that no planes are allowed in the area.
This is like the common impression of "stall". *We* don't need to fuel that
misperception by calling the ADIZ/FRZ a "no-fly zone" as earlier posters
have done here.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

Hi Martin,
Yep a US carrier has protected airspace. At least that was the case back
then, I would imagine it still is the same. Any Navy fellows care to explain
it further?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

how is this possible? you were in the Mediterrean sea. do you have
airspace
there?

#m
--
http://www.hotze.priv.at/album/aviation/caution.jpg

On Thu, 12 May 2005 02:36:48 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

Be that as it may, the good people of London chose to continue
business as usual in the face of nightly air raids of hundreds of
bombers, unlike those in DC who abandoned their posts in panic at the
approach of a Cessna 152.

Not really Larry. The truth is wartime travel for most Londoners, as
well as residents of other cities, was very difficult if not nearly
impossible due to wartime restrictions to travel. Londoners "took it"
because there was little else they could do.

Photo's of families that moved into the woods outside the cities to
camp in places they felt were safer than living in the subway tunnels
were suppressed by the government, for obvious reasons: It could have
been a propaganda coup for the Nazi's to indicate that the English
were cracking under the pressure.

The parts of London that were most heavily bombed during the blitz
were in the "east end" which happened to be where most of the city's
poor lived. They would happilly have gone elsewhere rather than be
subjected to nightly bombing, but could not due to their lack of
funds.

Corky Scott

Dave Stadt wrote:
Do they just go out into the streets and run around in circles bumping into each
other?

That's pretty much what they do when they are inside of the buildings.

In article ,
says...
Granted, the current rules are nonsense but that doesn't give these two
nitwits the go ahead to fly into the restricted area. That's not how you
fix stupid rules. That's how you get more stupid rules.

Just idly thinking here after two glasses of wine, but what if =all= the
spam cans in the country formed a line and flew directly over the white
house at 2000 feet with no transponder code and no clearance, and kept
doing it even as we were being shot down? What do you think the
eventual effect of this would be?

Jose

How many glasses of wine?