Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

In article om,
"John T" wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message


The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
field and can prove it then you won't be hassled. "Unreasonable" is
when they start forcing you to go through the "secure" terminal and have
to ride you to your airplane or hangar in an airport vehicle, watch you
extract your airplane and lock the hangar, and depart... and I'm sure
that wouldn't be the worst of it. Bottom line is that if something bad
happens and some news crew goes out to the local airport and finds
missing fence and gates that are wide open, the situation is going to
get overblown.

Oh, yeah, and enforce the terms of the lease that exists, in most cases,
for those who are using an airplane hangar as a U-Store by throwing them
out. One guy around here was actually bold enough to routinely drive an
18 wheeler through the gate, down the taxiways, and up to his T-hangar
so that he could load and unload things. None of those things were ever
aviation-related as far as I could tell, and if he ever had an airplane
in the hangar it certainly wasn't visible to the naked eye.



JKG

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
"Peter R." wrote:

Controllers at Philadelphia International Airport made radio contact with
the pilot and offered to clear him to land, but 'instead of landing, he
flew elsewhere,' Peters said.

------------- end quote --------------------------------

The couple of times I overheard someone bust class B airspace, the
controllers weren't in such a generous mood.

CNN just did a little creative translation. It probably went more like "To the
idiot in the spam can over PHL, get your but down here immediately! And call the
tower."

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Where the hell is gravity when sociaty needs it most to weed out the
Darwin award winners ??

Ben Haas N801BH

There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for driving
drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and 8 hours
bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him with flying
drunk?

David Gunter wrote in news:m-ydnYFe9bJxeJrdRVn-
:

Ugh!
-david

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/01/16/erratic.plane/index.html

or

http://snipurl.com/3v8l

(I prefer snipurl to other short-URL providers since one is never
directed to an advertisement but rather straight to the original link.)

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"John T" wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message


The bottom line is that if the small
fields don't get a grip on REASONABLE security, one of these days
something bad is going to hb_men and there is going to be UNREASONABLE
over-reaction.

Can you define "reasonable security" for us?

Reasonable security would include airport ID badges for those who have a
reason to be on the field, perimeter fencing that is tall enough and
sealed well enough to be a deterrent, gates that work, and some type of
continuous airport surveillence. Those are common sense things that, in
most cases, are SUPPOSED to be done anyway at most of these airports,
and actually serve to protect the aircraft owners based at the field
from theft and vandalism (it's happened around here). My home field has
perimeter fencing on only 3 sides and most of the fencing isn't much
more than waist high. Despite that, they put in gates with key-codes
that have been installed for quite a while but have never been
activated. "Reasonable" means that if you're supposed to be on the
field and can prove it then you won't be hassled.

Your reasonable is totally UNreasonable in my book. For what reason are you
creating a prison like facility? What actual problems are you trying to
solve? I don't need an ID badge to drive my car why should I need one to
fly my plane? My garage does not have continuous surveillence why should
airports? I don't have a fence around my garage why should GA airports?
Can you provide a reference to support your statement that what you suggest
is SUPPOSED to be done at airports?

"Judah" wrote in message
...
| There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for driving
| drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and 8 hours
| bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him with flying
| drunk?
|

Of course they will, as well as for violating class B airspace, refusing to
comply with ATC instructions, and reckless and dangerous operation of an
aircraft. The FAA does not move very rapidly, though, so it may be nearly
six months before the pilot gets a letter. The FAA may also propose an
emergency revocation of the pilot's medical certificate. I suspect that the
FAA may wait to see if the pilot reports his DWI within the mandatory time
limit. If he does not, then they will get him for that, too.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) wrote:
Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"

Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been restricted
airspace for years.

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) wrote:
Nice job, CNN.

Hasn't hit Fox yet--they are still riveted to Michael Jackson :-)


Just hit Fox--they performed true-to-form.

"he even flew next to a nuclear power plant"

Did he fly next to a nuclear power plant?

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Reasonable security would include ....

A whole bunch of things that are wildly UNreasonable, expensive, and useless.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

He had to. His airport is located right next door to one.

Which one is that? Palo Verde Nuclear Plant, out here, has been
restricted
airspace for years.

Pottstown, PA.


Is that the nuke plant in the upper left of the picture?

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPTW

OK. The article said the FAA was going to cite him for busting the Class B
and that was it. Seemed to imply that there is no DWI limits on Pilot's
License.



"C J Campbell" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
| There is a lot of talk in the article about charging him DWI for
| driving drunk on the highway. But there is no mention of the 0.04 and
| 8 hours bottle-to-throttle rule. Is the FAA not planning to charge him
| with flying drunk?
|

Of course they will, as well as for violating class B airspace,
refusing to comply with ATC instructions, and reckless and dangerous
operation of an aircraft. The FAA does not move very rapidly, though,
so it may be nearly six months before the pilot gets a letter. The FAA
may also propose an emergency revocation of the pilot's medical
certificate. I suspect that the FAA may wait to see if the pilot
reports his DWI within the mandatory time limit. If he does not, then
they will get him for that, too.