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.

Maule Driver wrote:
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.

Whats the problem? Did you start squawking 1200? there is no
requirement for you th exit the ADIZ unless of course your xponder
stopped working.

Maule Driver wrote in news:ajsge.22624
:

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

No, that's easy enough to do in some areas. I've had fighters scrambled
on me. I was flying a helicopter in the Gulf of Mexico, inbound,
squawking our normal code, but the transponder had glitched internally,
and was not squawking the code set in the windows. I had no way of
knowing this, though, and the first I knew of it an F16 was trying to fly
formation on my Bell 206, doing all of 90 knots or so. This was 10 years
or so ago, and I wasn't violated, just had to call after I landed on an
offshore platform and explain that I had the right code in the
transponder. I then called and got a replacement helicopter sent out,
and the one I had been flying was taken in for a transponder replacement.

I also had a USN P3 AWACS plane come down and take a look at me, although
I hadn't penetrated the ADIZ, having only been a few miles offshore, and
I was just flying along the beach.

Sometimes the USAF reserve pilots just need some flight time, and they
might scramble when it's not really necessary, although that's probably
less likely nowadays.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

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