Buzzed?

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:59:42 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, Roger said:
Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to be flying along US
27/I-75 between Grailing and the straights and see fighters up close.

There was a case 5 or 10 years ago when a couple of fighters decided to
play "practice intercept" on a commerical airliner that had been cleared
through their MOA, not realizing that airliners have TCAS now. The
airliner reacted rather violently to the RA, and now the military doesn't
do that any more.

Now that would have been a ride worth paying for:-)) IF you had your
seat belt fastened. I hope they had lots of lucn bags.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:42:32 GMT, "Ted" wrote:


"Ted" wrote in message
news

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
oups.com...
So I'm flying IFR down V441 in Florida today, when I hear the
controller who's working me call traffic to a VFR airplane he's
providing with advisories. "Traffic, twelve o'clock, opposite
direction, very fast, same altitude, suggest you descend now." The 172
he's talking to descends in a hurry, and the traffic passes without
being seen. A few minute later, the controller says the same traffic
has circled around and is now coming back at the VFR airplane once
again. Once again, negative contact. Next time, the traffic is reported
circling ahead of the 172, until he breaks off and again makes a pass
around the Cessna. This time the now rather panicked VFR pilot see the
traffic, and reports it to the controller as "some sort of single." The
controller points out that at 250 kts at 5000 ft, it's unlikely to be a
piston and it must be some sort of jet.

I wonder if it was one of these?

http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Planes.shtml

These guys tend to fly around in circles at 250kts.


One day years ago after I did my runup in my little Cessna 152 and announced
my departure on runway 34 one of these little single seat buggers pulled out
onto the runway in front of me and took off. No waiting in line on the
taxiway for his turn, no radio calls, no nothing. I was quite annoyed at
his complete contempt for proper airport procedures until I saw him use
about 450 feet of runway to lift off. His climb out was essentially
vertical and in another few moments he flew over my head and out of sight.

http://www.if1airracing.com/IF1_Bio....0Hav en%20Bio

A couple of years back I was headed to Muncie In with a couple of
friends riding along. We were passing Ft Wayne at roughly 9000.
Approach had us looking for some F-16s doing touch and gos. They made
three complete circuits from way above us, down to the runway, a touch
and then a darn near vertical climb that must have been to 15 or
20,000, then a steep descent (essentially a split s) and back to the
runway. We were passing through at just shy of 200 MPH and they made
those 3 complete circuits just while we transited the area.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Jose wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

What agreement?

This one:

We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...

The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was
a bi-plane showing off that darn near hit a hangar. There was a local
tenant that decided to do a low (25') pass down the runway the same day.
This with all the YE events going on. Not a good day. Then I told you of
the guy that did low high speed passes in his areobatic plane
interfering with other traffic. Well, he got killed doing low aerobatics
over a marina. The city enacted the ordinance. Like I said before, the
city attorney is a pilot. Missed approaches and balked landings would
not exceed the limits of the definition.

Ross

Judah wrote:

Jose wrote in news:hCd2g.4265$mu2.4052
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:


What agreement?

This one:


We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.


I'm not a lawyer, but I think you have no basis unless you can prove that
the "buzzer" bought fuel at that pump...

In a previous article, Ross Richardson said:
The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was

Wouldn't matter what the fine is - any competent aviation attorney could
get the idiot off on the grounds that the airport has no jurisdiction once
you're in the air.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Programmer (n): One who makes the lies the salesman told come true.

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the fine
it.

As they have no jurisdiction, it doesn't matter if they do it once, or fifty
times.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, Ross Richardson said:
The airport is KSWI. The ordinance is very specific in what determines
"buzzing". It is basically unenforceable, except for those that
continually do it and the tail number is recorded. Not sure what the
fine it. What started this was that during a Young Eagle Rally there was

Wouldn't matter what the fine is - any competent aviation attorney could
get the idiot off on the grounds that the airport has no jurisdiction once
you're in the air.

And it doesn't matter if they do it once or "continually" (maybe he's doing
loop-de-loops over the airport).

by Greg Farris farris@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Apr 19, 2006 at 09:40 AM


What amazes me is that people never tire of lamenting how bad it "could
have
been". Small planes crash every day, and by now we know what the result
is.
And it's bad enough too - we have to keep working to maintain the
improvement
we've already registered. But - "if everything had been different from
what
it really was" if for some reason this particular one had been unlike the

last thousand or so, then just think of how bad it could have been...

"If the playing field had been swarming with kids that day..." Of course
no
one stops to think that in the mind of a pilot, looking for a spot to put
it,
"a field swarming with kids" does not have the same value as " a large,
empty
field". There may be an element of luck in that there were no injuries,
but....

GF




And how is this different from the "what could have been" statements made
by the reporters concerning the plane that crashed into an empty school
field?

AOPA, on the UAV crash:

"This crash highlights the safety concerns we've voiced all along," said
Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "The FAA
should not permit UAV operations until they are certified to the same level
of safety as manned aircraft.

"Thankfully, in this accident no one in the air or on the ground was hurt.
But just think that if a pilot had been flying legally under the TFR and
the UAV hit the aircraft from behind and above — the pilot would have had
no chance to see and avoid the uncontrolled UAV."

by "Kingfish" Apr 27, 2006 at 06:52 AM


Whiny, ranting guy from NH wrote:


I think a good example of a "nut job" would be someone with an axe to
grind who has limited information on a subject, makes unsubstantiated
claims ad nauseum, and continues to beat the drum to a limited audience
thinking he's actually making a difference.



King: I agree with you, except that Phil Boyer does not hail from New
Hampshire.

King: I agree with you, except that Phil Boyer does not hail from New
Hampshire.

LOL. Funny.