Questions on VFR sectionals and TACs

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.



Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

What? That's a quote of Reagen.

Newps,

Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

What? That's a quote of Reagen.


I was wrong, too. The quote is usually attributed to Lenin, although he
didn't use the exact words. It goes back to an old Russian proverb. And
good old Ronnie based his words on Lenin's. Funny, actually.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Newps posted:

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.



Stalin, actually, not Reagan.

What? That's a quote of Reagen.

Reagan was quoting "an old Russian saying", so it just might be Stalin's,
though I don't know that first-hand.

Neil

On 11/20/06 12:30, Newps wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:


Exactly. So why don't you just believe the people that have ...


Because people are so often wrong that believing them on their word
alone is dangerous.

So why are you here? You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what
people write. That's the definition of insane.

He's here to troll. Answering him is... well ;-)

Newps writes:

So why are you here?

It's a free resource, and some people do know what they are talking
about and are willing to share that knowledge.

You refuse to fly and refuse to believe what people write.

I don't refuse to fly, but I haven't the resources to fly for real. I
don't believe what some people write, either because they are
verifiably incorrect, or because they have been so in the past, or
because their behavior is consistent with a tendency to disregard the
truth in favor of other considerations.

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

Newps wrote:


Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


although, like Ronald Reagan, I
still there's no harm in trusting but verifying.



Stalin, actually, not Reagan.


What? That's a quote of Reagen.

He was deliberately paraphrasing an old Russian
proverb.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bob Noel writes:

I literally got it from the club a few hours earlier as he unpacked
the boxes. :-)

So is the actual purpose of that big area explained, or does it just
say that it's a (mysterious) restriction?


It IS a "mysterious" restriction. It is a direct result of political
paranoia. We have many politicos who think that some guy out tooling around
in his Cessna 150 is going to decide to go out in a burst of glory and fly
his little Cessna into said politicos backside.

It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs, and
other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the world.
Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!

Our congress has cars and trucks blasing by the building all day and all
night of all sizes, none of which have passed through any kind of security
screening and any of which could be a massive bomb. The congress critturs
ignore all that.
Then some poor idiot in a Cessna 150 doesn't read the news or check the
charts or call flight service before takeoff and wanders around over
Washington, DC and they all panic and evacuate congress.

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

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

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.

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

Highflyer wrote:
It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs, and
other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the world.
Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!

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. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
City" bomb, though. I guess if you plotted it all out well, you could
manage more. Not that I've thought about the logistics much, I just
think it's moderately low on the risk scale.

Erik wrote:
Highflyer wrote:
It is interesting. We have car bombs, roadside bombs, truck bombs,
and other homemade of purchased bombs going off every day around the
world. Nowhere have I ever heard of a Cessna 150 bomb!

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. It certainly wouldn't be an "Oklahoma
City" bomb, though. I guess if you plotted it all out well, you could
manage more. Not that I've thought about the logistics much, I just
think it's moderately low on the risk scale.

It is very low risk mainly because there are so many easier ways to get X
amount of explosives on target.

I would expect that there is much more chance that if a terrorist were to do
so the target of the attack would not be where the explosives went but GA
itself.

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.