busted

Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore (MTN) a
few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me.

It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to
scramble fighters.

Flew into KentMorr and cut the corner exiting the airspace to the east
(i.e. started my turn south onto the airway before *completely* clearing
the ADIZ). "call us when you land".

What happened to the new warning lights?

buttman wrote:
I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore (MTN) a
few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me.

The're about to lase those guys, right ?

wrote:
Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:

Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and
they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building.

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/

Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/


Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article
means? :

"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement,
there is no situation under which the pilots would be given
“authorization” to shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots
some discretion. According to the officials Air Force pilots in these
cases are either ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this
case they were not..."

Antonio

"Antoñio" wrote in message
...
Peter Clark wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/


Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
:

"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."

Antonio




I know it says "a scenario that would give pilots some discretion" but the
last sentence sounds to me like the pilots will not be given any discretion.

I'd interpret it to mean that it is not up to the pilots to determine
hostile intent.

If they do not receive an order to shoot, they will not shoot.
If they receive an order to shoot, they will shoot.

National Command Authority has the responsibility to make the call ... not
the guys/gals in the cockpits.

My $0.02 worth,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Antoñio" wrote in message
...

Peter Clark wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/


Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means?
:

"...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there
is no situation under which the pilots would be given “authorization” to
shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion.
According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either
ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..."

Antonio





I know it says "a scenario that would give pilots some discretion" but the
last sentence sounds to me like the pilots will not be given any discretion.

I'd interpret it to mean that it is not up to the pilots to determine
hostile intent.

If they do not receive an order to shoot, they will not shoot.
If they receive an order to shoot, they will shoot.

National Command Authority has the responsibility to make the call ... not
the guys/gals in the cockpits.

My $0.02 worth,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ


Thank you. I am guessing your interpretation is correct though I am
still left wondering how the writer of this article ever made it to
prime time.

Antonio

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.


I hope. It's an EXTREMELY DUMB *******.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:38:39 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while.


I hope. It's an EXTREMELY DUMB *******.


Probably not as dumb as a Fox News "Special Aviation Consultant" , who
I heard say that it's time we started "blowing these small planes out
of the sky", else "the terrorists" will get the idea that they too can
get within 3 miles of the Houses of Moronity.

National paranoia combined with national hysteria. Great theater.