Questions on VFR sectionals and TACs

Erik writes:

There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
was violating restricted airspace.

The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?

I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
enough to make me nervous.

Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you load
into a Cessna?

See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place. So
whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you can
be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.

There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking off
in the first place.

However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets, along
with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will do
stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at some of the
anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a matter of time till one
of them does something really stupid.

Like bulldozing an airport?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will
do stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at
some of the anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a
matter of time till one of them does something really stupid.

Like bulldozing an airport?

pretty much.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Erik writes:

There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
was violating restricted airspace.

The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?

I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
enough to make me nervous.

Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you load
into a Cessna?

See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place. So
whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you can
be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.

There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking off
in the first place.

However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets, along
with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?

Dispensing air born chemical or biological weapons takes a fair amount
of sophistication in both the substance and the dispensing mechanism
to cause any significant damage.

Contrary to the breathless scenes in movies and on TV, blowing something
up in midair is a **** poor dispenser of such chemicals.

Take the Tokyo Sarin gas attack on the subway system; 5 coordinated
attacks in an enclosed area with tens ofthousands of people and they
only managed to kill 12, severly injure 50, and irritate about 1000.

A single drop of Sarin can kill an adult, but in spite of having
5 liters of the stuff, not a whole lot of damage was done.

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Highflyer writes:

Think about that. These are the people who are running our country!

Then they must be the people we elected. Think about that.


Oh yeah, of coarse your are right. Politics are just as simple as flying a
sim.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

All terrorists don't come from sand land. There are those that will do
stupid, evil crap for just about any cause. And if you look at some of
the
anti-aviation groups that are out there it is just a matter of time till
one
of them does something really stupid.

Like bulldozing an airport?


Take your meds.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Erik writes:

There was that one jackass that flew his cessna (I don't know
what model) into the side of the White House. I'm certain he
was violating restricted airspace.

The other question is: If you were to take a 150, load it up with
fuel, misc minor equipment, how much explosive could you get on there?

I guess it would be in the neighborhood of 250 pounds or so, which is
enough to make me nervous.

Then consider this: How much poison gas or biological poison could you
load
into a Cessna?

See, if you fill it with explosive, and they shoot you down, you explode
harmlessly in the air. If you fill it with CBW agents, and they shoot you
down, they do your job for you by spreading the agents all over the place.
So
whether they shoot you down or not, you accomplish your mission. And you
can
be over your target much faster than they can scramble to shoot you down.

There's no way to prevent this, short of preventing aircraft from taking
off
in the first place.

However, it's just as easy to do this with a vehicle, and since vehicles
already have practically unrestricted access to all the juicy targets,
along
with more capacity and less surveillance, why bother with an aircraft?



Yeah, just last week Lowe's was giving away 50 lb. bags of anthrax when you
bought a new dusing attachment for any popular Cessan or Piper model.

wrote:

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.


Or a baseball bat

In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote:

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.


Or a baseball bat

No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
bat in a Tokyo subway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Gig 601XL Builder
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
wrote:

They could have killed and injured far more with a simple bomb.


Or a baseball bat

No, that wouldn't work 'cause there isn't enough room to swing a
bat in a Tokyo subway.



Ok, good point, how about a knife. I don't remember how many people the
group that committed the attacks had involved but if you had just handed
each of three or four people a combat knife and had them run around the
subway station sticking folks you probably would have had just as large or
larger body count.