A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Prohibited Area



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old May 28th 05, 01:21 AM
bill hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am sure glad that those Cessna 150s won't be harming those hardened sub
pens that were designed to survive an indirect hit from a ruski nuclear
warhead. If a terrorist crashes in to the pen, I am sure the FAA will be
right there to quickly take away his pilots license, and then He won't be
able to crash into sub pens ever again, without first flying without a
license.

This restriction is the price we pay for added security, or at least the
appearance of added security. It is just like the added sense of security we
get when we restrict small airplanes from flying around nuclear plants. I
for one stay up late at night worrying about aluminum framed aircraft
carrying tens of gallons of gasoline crashing through the ten foot thick
reinforced concrete walls of a nuclear reactor. I know the engineers
designed them to withstand a direct hit from a 747, but I don't know if the
engineers considered the insidious effects of a skyhawk or Cherokee
screaming in at 120 knots.

I am have no problem letting the government search my medical records and
library records. I am sure that there are certain medical conditions that
only afflict terrorists. Maybe the government knows that all the people with
gout are really Islamic terrorists. Maybe the terrorists do all their
research for their terrorist plots by reading the books in the non-fiction
section of your local library.

These are the sacrifices we all will have to make to live in the post 9/11
world. We are all going to have to learn to give up some our personal
freedoms and liberties for the impression of a safer world.


"turbo" wrote in message
...
Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?


I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on
straight
and staying out of the restricted areas.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Patrick AFB, NASA-KSC Area Log - Tuesday 09 March 2004 AllanStern Military Aviation 0 March 10th 04 06:15 AM
Patrick AFB Area Log - Friday, 27 Feb 2004 AllanStern Military Aviation 0 February 28th 04 06:15 PM
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII Mike Yared Military Aviation 4 October 30th 03 03:09 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Patrick AFB Area Log, Monday 30 June 2003 AllanStern Military Aviation 0 July 1st 03 06:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Š2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.