Another black eye for GA

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi all,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"David H" wrote:
Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
This is war!

Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
by fighters and shot down.

Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from
Faux. It will be interesting to see how they top it.

Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You
know...the worst possible security risk?

What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if someone
flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other buildings.
It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that contains the
reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee would be similar to
the result of the 172 that hit the office building in Fla. You might break
a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of these
plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that we're dealing
with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?


I sure hope that the population of this country gets a clue sometime soon.


Me too. But remember that FOX supposedly just "reports" ( far cry from
CBS's SHOOT HIM DOWN...hell, FOX didn't even suggest "Th'ow him to the
floor")

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security, so
"why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security, so
"why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?


Because maybe the threat was accurately assessed as nil?

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security,
so
"why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?


Because maybe the threat was accurately assessed as nil?

You know that, and I know that, but does the media? Well, yes, but that
don't sell!

Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
we're dealing with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation. In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.



Exactly, as it diverts resources from dealing with real issues. This is
akin to yelling "FIRE" in a theatre.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road with _no_
oversight, do you?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
we're dealing with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation.

_relaxed_ , how?

I'd like to know your definition of "deregulation". Remember: The roughly
same poeple that regulate the nuclear industry also regulate avaition
safety. (shudder!!!)



In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

I'd heard something along that line -- do you have a reference with more
detail?


The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I know howthey're built...and you're right -- most of it is meaningless
scare tactics.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:

Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!

So...which story was more newsworthy: CNN or Fox?

Probably CNN this time. Fox always goes for the shouters.

Rob

"Rob Perkins" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:

Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!

So...which story was more newsworthy: CNN or Fox?

Probably CNN this time. Fox always goes for the shouters.

('scuse...CBS, not CNN, the one's that aired their laundry about the lies
they told)

Fox goes for shouters, but CBS is shrilling to shoot down Cherokee's? --
man, what are YOU smoking?

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.