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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA.
Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac? Charlie wrote: Just heard that a small aircraft busted the DC prohibited are, and they evacuated the White House and Capitol Building. Some poor ******* ain't going to be aviating for a while. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Charlie Derk wrote:
The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA. Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac? Phil Boyer popped out and made himself available to any press that was willing to listen. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Natalie wrote:
Charlie Derk wrote: The irony in all this is that they had him land at KFDK - home of AOPA. Do you think AOPA's legal council met the pilots out on the tarmac? Phil Boyer popped out and made himself available to any press that was willing to listen. You gotta love Phil, he is a great (and underappreciated) guy. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:01:37 -0700, Scott Moore
wrote: I personally suspect the major reason cessnas like this NOT being shot down is the obvious damage of falling debris, plus they would probally figgure that even a plane loaded with explosives would do more damage if shot than not. Then there is the possibility the rocket would miss and hit the ground (bullets would be even worse - I think the rockets can at least be programmed to explode only on the target, not the ground). Fighter aircraft, bullets and rockets were never designed to do low damage battle over the capitol. Then there is the obvious possibility that you wouls simply shoot two innocent American citizens out of the sky. I'm guessing both these ninnies voted for Bush, and it would have been a shame to incinerate two guys who supported his presidency. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Maule Driver wrote: It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to scramble fighters. Flew into KentMorr and cut the corner exiting the airspace to the east (i.e. started my turn south onto the airway before *completely* clearing the ADIZ). "call us when you land". What happened to the new warning lights? buttman wrote: I heard that on the radio too. I just did a flight to baltimore (MTN) a few days ago, and I was afraid that would happen to me. Whats the problem? Did you start squawking 1200? there is no requirement for you th exit the ADIZ unless of course your xponder stopped working. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Maule Driver wrote in news:ajsge.22624
: It doesn't take much to generate a violation. Gotta be an idiot to scramble fighters. No, that's easy enough to do in some areas. I've had fighters scrambled on me. I was flying a helicopter in the Gulf of Mexico, inbound, squawking our normal code, but the transponder had glitched internally, and was not squawking the code set in the windows. I had no way of knowing this, though, and the first I knew of it an F16 was trying to fly formation on my Bell 206, doing all of 90 knots or so. This was 10 years or so ago, and I wasn't violated, just had to call after I landed on an offshore platform and explain that I had the right code in the transponder. I then called and got a replacement helicopter sent out, and the one I had been flying was taken in for a transponder replacement. I also had a USN P3 AWACS plane come down and take a look at me, although I hadn't penetrated the ADIZ, having only been a few miles offshore, and I was just flying along the beach. Sometimes the USAF reserve pilots just need some flight time, and they might scramble when it's not really necessary, although that's probably less likely nowadays. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:52:46 -0700, Antoņio
wrote: Jay Beckman wrote: "Antoņio" wrote in message ... Peter Clark wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:30:31 GMT, wrote: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817210/ Anyone care to tell me what exactly this paragraph from the article means? : "...The officials explained that, under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane, a scenario that would give pilots some discretion. According to the officials Air Force pilots in these cases are either ordered to shoot down the plane or not, and in this case they were not..." Antonio Note the comma after the word "plane". Paraphrasing: Under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane. That would be a scenario that would give the pilots some discretion. Under strict rules of engagement the pilots are not given any discretion. They *must* receive orders to shoot down the plane before than may do so. They are not given the option of making that decision. Authorization means they *may*, or may not at their discretion. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message
news Note the comma after the word "plane". Paraphrasing: Under strict rules of engagement, there is no situation under which the pilots would be given authorization to shoot down a plane. That would be a scenario that would give the pilots some discretion. Under strict rules of engagement the pilots are not given any discretion. They *must* receive orders to shoot down the plane before than may do so. They are not given the option of making that decision. Authorization means they *may*, or may not at their discretion. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Now that you mention it Roger, reading it with a more noticeable pause gives it a slightly different bent. Interesting. Jay B |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Busted TFR | Bela P. Havasreti | Piloting | 6 | June 22nd 04 03:46 PM |
Busted IFR Checkride | Jon Kraus | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | May 4th 04 02:31 PM |
Who's busted? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 24 | March 22nd 04 08:10 PM |
rec.aviation.questions is busted | Dan Jacobson | General Aviation | 2 | November 18th 03 05:39 PM |
Help - I busted into the Class B SEATAC airspace last night, does anyone have any advice ? | steve mew | Piloting | 38 | October 28th 03 06:08 PM |