Pilot, possibly intoxicated, flies around Philly for 3 hours

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.

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:

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

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

Yep.

Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20 miles
from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are scattered
all over the landscape....

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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

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

Yep.

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

Judah wrote:

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.

Actually, it implies that he was not intoxicated.

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

I should have spoke more clearly...

The article was pretty clear that the local cops did a Breathalyzer and
found his blood alcohol level at 0.13.

The article spends a great deal of time talking about how the local
police are trying to find a way to get him for drunk driving, but that
the drunk driving statute specifies "on a highway."

But the comment at the end of the article notes that the FAA indicated
his bust of the class B, and leaves a gaping wide hole when it comes to
DWI. The slant that I think they were going for is that they were trying
to imply that the FAA doesn't prosecute DWI.

Because it's media, it's all about the slant...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in
:



Judah wrote:

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.

Actually, it implies that he was not intoxicated.

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

Jonathan Goodish wrote in message ...
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.

This seems totally unreasonable to me.

The typical small airport I fly into is surrounded by farm
fields. It's a runway, a few dozen hangars, a fuel pump,
and an FBO building which may or may not be occupied by a
business. The fuel may be self serve, or there may be a
plastic-covered sign on it saying something like "call
###-#### for fuel" or even "call police for fuel". There
is typically a 6 button combination lock on the building
(or maybe a lock box holding a key, with a combination lock)
and a note posted saying enter the frequency of some navaid
or nearby tracon. Something someone with an aviation chart
for that area can easily look up, and get in to use the phone
and the restrooms.

At times, the airport is totally deserted. At times, it's
populated by a group of pilots who've known each other for
years if not decades. Fly in more than once and they recognize
you too. Any airplanes on the ramp are transients, because
hangars are quite reasonable in cost or rental.

The airport commission is a bunch of local pilots who take
care of mowing the grass next to the runway and fixing the
runway lights when they go out. Sometimes they get money for
major improvements like runway resurfacing from the state
DOT, but typically they are a low-budget operation.

Just EXACTLY what would "airport badges, perimeter fencing
with gates, and continuous airport surveillance" add to the
security of such an airport?

OTOH I can see a requirement to provide same putting such
airports TOTALLY out of business and putting aviation TOTALLY
out of reach for literally thousands of pilots.

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).

SUPPOSED to be done anyway according to whom?

In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)

I'm afraid I see this as an example of the conundrum "why do they
call it 'common sense' when it seems so rare?"

Cheers,
Sydney

This is the first I've heard on any nuclear plants actually being equipped with
SAMs. I wonder what unit it is and who is picking up the tab. Is there a NOTAM
anywhere that deadly force could be employed against aircraft getting too close,
or even a definition of what too close would be?

Dave Reinhart


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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

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

Yep.

Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20 miles
from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are scattered
all over the landscape....

Yes that is a Nuke plant in the upper left, but those are only the cooling
towers.




"David Reinhart" wrote in message
...
This is the first I've heard on any nuclear plants actually being equipped
with
SAMs. I wonder what unit it is and who is picking up the tab. Is there a
NOTAM
anywhere that deadly force could be employed against aircraft getting too
close,
or even a definition of what too close would be?

Dave Reinhart


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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


Tom Sixkiller wrote:

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

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

Yep.

Damn...Palo Verde has AA missiles on it's site now...and it's only 20
miles
from Luke AFB...with a load of F-16's. Of course, those F-16's are
scattered
all over the landscape....

In what way would these measures protect the aircraft owners
at such airports from theft and vandalism? (hint: at work, I park
in a lot which is surrounded by a tall fence, gates operated by
individual badges, patrolled by security and under security camera
surveillance. we STILL have a problem with theft and vandalism.)


Having no security is unreasonable in my opinion. Most of us who own
airplanes paid a good chunk of money for them and I, for one, am not
rolling in money. Sure, the airplane is insured, but having no
deterrent security at an airport is like leaving my car unlocked with
the keys in the ignition. More than one local airport in my area has
had vandalism and theft of aircraft and avionics. On more than one
occassion the airport locals recogized some folks whom they did not
recognize walking the airport and apparently mining people for
information. Despite the suspicions, what were folks supposed to do?
There was no crime committed so law enforcement wasn't interested.
Eventually stuff was stolen and the airport decided to hire a night
guard to patrol the field. and turn the gates back on to prevent
unauthorized vehicle traffic.

I also don't think that you can have one standard for larger airport and
another for smaller ones. For example, it's okay to have no security
beyond a padlock at Podunk Field, Midwest, but I doubt that you'd agree
that it would be okay to have no security at BOS or LGA or JFK.

Eventually, the bad guys are going to figure out that there is no
security at Podunk Field and capitalize on that fact.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what is so unreasonable about controlled
access to the field. I don't see what is so unreasonable about ID
badges. I don't see what is so unreasonable about surveillence.
Eventually the old guys are going to die off and a new generation who
doesn't spend all of their time at the airport is going to come along
and it will be more difficult to spot those who do not belong. If law
enforcement is to help secure these airports, they also need to know who
does or does not belong, and in most cases law enforcement isn't going
to be hanging out at the local airport all the time.



JKG

In article ,
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

Reasonable security would include ....

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


How so? I guess my experience with theft and vandalism at local fields
must have been my imagination.

Quite the contrary, my suggestions are quite reasonable, not expensive
(except for the surveillence), and far from useless. If you don't agree
then I expect you to suggest alternatives for securing these fields. "A
bunch of guys who've been hanging out there since WWII" isn't an
acceptable answer.



JKG