On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:17:47 +0200, Stefan
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:

It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.

It does not.

It seems to have to some extent in this case. And that failure in
establishing communications apparently resulted in delaying the Cessna
from diverting course away from ground based weapons and certain
death.

There are visual signs.


That is true also. However, I have not read/heard reports of the
standard/documented* visual signs being successfully given in this
case.

In this case, apparently initially attempting to use radio
communications to communicate with the pilot of the Cessna 150 failed
resulting in the aircraft continuing deeper into the White House FRZ.
The F-15 intercept aircraft had to resort to the deployment of flairs
(an undocumented procedure outside what pilots are taught to expect in
intercept situations) to cause the Cessna to change course. Should
the flight have continued 15 to 20 seconds longer without changing
course, government spokesmen have said the order to shoot it down
would have been given. Such a close encounter with our government's
lethal force makes me uncomfortable, and calls into question the
adequacy of the intercept procedures as they are currently written.

From the information (of admittedly questionable credibility) I've
seen, it appears the PIC's judgment in intentionally launching without
being current to carry passengers, with a pre-9/11 chart, was notably
poor. It appears to me, that he hadn't been aloft for a good length
of time, and his lack of currency resulted in his flight becoming a
hazard to aerial navigation and causing a disruption of governmental
decorum. But I don't consider those offences to warrant a death
sentence.

So while this case reflects badly on GA pilots, it also points out the
indiscretion of the security policy currently in place in the vicinity
of our nation's capital and those who drafted it.



* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...intercept.html