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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Jens Krueger wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote: We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the entire flight. Huh? Is 'Jim' a CFI? Thought the Troy guy was a student pilot? Troy is a student pilot. Schaeffer is not a CFI. Schaeffer was acting PIC (a student cannot act as PIC). From the various articles, it appears that Schaeffer was not attempting to provide instruction, so he doesn't have to be a CFI. The situation is exactly the same as if I were taking my family on a trip and had my non-rated stepson handle the controls. Note that Schaeffer apparently was *not* current to carry passengers, however, and he's been charged on that count. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:Bzxke.1093$rr.88@fed1read01 Somone over on r.a.student posted that there may have been an ELT inerfering with 121.5 in the area at the time. Fair enough. I still don't find it credible that they failed on the second frequency. Beyond that, even "gubment employees" can think to hold up a "Follow Me" sign. None of this detracts from Shaeffer's negligence. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 May 2005 23:31:07 -0400, "John T" wrote in
: : "Larry Dighera" wrote in message Without a sectional of that end of the country, I have difficulty appreciating the diversion. Could you describe it? DC area including ADIZ and P-40: http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/.../03-1-063x.jpg Flight path: http://tinyurl.com/8ow44 They weren't trying to avoid P-40 (Camp David airspace NW of Washington). They were on a direct path to Lumberton, NC. Thank you for the links. The ADIZ is clearly marked on the sectional, so that it can't be missed by any pilot using it. I wonder if the PIC was using an expired, pre-ADIZ sectional, or any chart at all for navigation? Given his apparent lack of recent flight experience, I wonder how long it had been since he had flown in the area. Pitifully pathetic ... Without more information, it's difficult to assign blame for the inability to communicate. Certainly, your hypothesis is one possible explanation, but I could think of others... Larry, this is the worst baiting attempt I've seen from you. What frequency do you think they requested first? Even if it wasn't a "standard" frequency, what frequency *should* the pilot have tuned during an intercept procedure? If *ALL* else fails, what frequency would you attempt to use? Despite your protests above, two-way communication requires both interceptor and interceptee radios to be tuned to the same frequency. As a result, there is equal opportunity for each to cause communications to fail. As with your earlier analogy, the Florida MAC had *nothing* in common with this issue. In the military/civil mishap I mentioned, the military flight-lead failed to correctly set his radio to the frequency he was given by ATC, so it illustrates that military pilots are not infallible. Of course, that's not true. If the C-150 had gotten closer to the White House, it would have been downed. Perhaps. The point remains the intercept pilots did not request nor were granted permission (authority) to open fire at any point in this scenario. Therefore, nobody had authority to shoot down the plane. You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the ground. Please cite the source of your assertion. Or is it just your guess? Several news stories reported what I said. Show me otherwise. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a link to support what I heard on the news. It was an interview with one of the F-16 pilots who intimated that ground personnel were authorized to shoot down intruder aircraft. Of course, the pilot couldn't explicitly reveal government security policy, but it was clear from what he said, that if the aircraft had come in closer proximity to the White House, it would have been downed. Define "worked". The inability to establish communications certainly confirms that the system almost resulted in the death of two airmen. No, it didn't. Their negligence almost killed them. Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would have almost killed them. Again, this should not in any way be construed as any kind of support for the ADIZ, but I certainly wouldn't go flying around Nevada without knowing *exactly* where I should *not* be. Likewise, if you're not familiar with the DC area and the ADIZ procedures, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and stay well clear. Agreed. (unfortunately, since this will probably bolster various alphabet soup agencies around DC). What is that supposed to mean? It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much more restrictive airspace around DC. Oh, that alphabet soup. I would think that it is VP Cheney who is the force behind the repressive government stance in the name of security. Wasn't he the principle drafter of the Patriot Act? You have provided no evidence that the C-150 pilots were at fault for the initial lack of communication. It's pretty clear the PIC was negligent, but he deserves to be heard before conclusions are drawn. Oh, please. Read their own statement: "...our radio had been working during the flight, which we know, because we were able to monitor other aircraft communications... [After turning westbound] we were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the original emergency frequency..." Their radio suddenly worked after they turned 90 degrees and visually verified they'd screwed the royal pooch. I'm not buying the idea that they could not raise ANYbody on 121.5. Not in this area. Even *IF* the Blackhawk crew had accidentally turned off that frequency, I guarantee either the Citation, the F-16s, Potomac TRACON or one of the many aircraft in the area listening to guard on COM2 would have heard and responded. I see your reasoning now. I suppose any response from other aircraft would depend on what was broadcast, but you have a point. I doubt you're naive enough to honestly think *all* of the intercept aircrew and everybody else in the area were not listening to 121.5. I just try not to jump to conclusions without some supporting evidence. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:y5yke.18399$4d6.16747@trndny04... From the various articles, it appears that Schaeffer was not attempting to provide instruction, so he doesn't have to be a CFI. There's no requirement to be a CFI in order to attempt to give instruction. It's just that instruction by a non-CFI doesn't count toward the training time required for a certificate or rating. --Gary |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the ground. No, I haven't. Let me clarify, though. Nobody had "authorization" even if they had the authority. Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would have almost killed them. Semantics, perhaps, but negligently straying where bullets are threatened to be loosed is the fault of the pilot. Doggedly continuing on a flight path directly over downtown DC with military/interceptor aircraft in formation or circling is the fault of the pilot. "Duh, dem's purdy planes, Homer. Ya think they give this show to all the visitors?" All The Powers That Be have made great efforts to inform pilots of the rules of this airspace. Beyond dismantling it (which I want), I don't know what else they can do to educate pilots. The Visual Warning System is a step in the right direction, but even after they publish it in the AIM as they've indicated, the pilots have to read/hear about it to know what to do. Otherwise, the cockpit conversation will be "Duh, dem's purdy red-greenlights. I didn't know it was Christmas, already." I would think that it is VP Cheney who is the force behind the repressive government stance in the name of security. Wasn't he the principle drafter of the Patriot Act? I thought you don't jump to conclusions? Even *if* Cheney is the powermonger you seem to think he is, do you honestly think there are no other bureaucracies (regardless of political leanings) with the same goal? -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a link to support what I heard on the news. It was an interview with one of the F-16 pilots who intimated that ground personnel were authorized to shoot down intruder aircraft. Jay Honeck posted an AP article that contains "As a wayward Cessna flew deep in restricted airspace, national security officials were on the phone discussing whether to implement the last line of defense: shooting it down." It continues to state that Rumsfeld and the president have the authority to order a shootdown and that Rumsfeld was in the loop at the time. The thread is entitled "It was really close..." and Jay's post is the initial one. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Grumman-581" wrote in message news:KNxke.2683$Is4.2073@attbi_s21... "John T" wrote in message ... It plays into the hands of various security agencies that want a much more restrictive airspace around DC. Then let 'em have it... Pick a particular distance -- say 20 miles -- and put a ring of lasers or search lights pointing straight up... ALL aircraft are prohibited from this area... No Congress-critters coming into there, no presidential helicopters, NOTHING... Make EVERYONE have to land somewhere outside of this 20 mile radius... While we're at it, let's ban ALL motor vehicular traffic within this 20 mile radius also... Some might say that the government would grind to a hault... AND THIS WOULD BE A BAD THING??? Maybe even build a wall around the city to keep all the crooks inside the city? They would just tunnel under it. They'd hire a bunch of illegal aliens to dig it. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:33:20 -0400, "John T" wrote in
: : "Larry Dighera" wrote in message You've failed to consider government personnel positioned on the ground. No, I haven't. Let me clarify, though. Nobody had "authorization" even if they had the authority. According to this report, the order to shoot down the hapless little Cessna 150 was only 15 to 20 seconds away from occurring, because the policy relies on unreliable radio communications: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7972808/ washingtonpost.com Highlights Military was set to down Cessna Authority granted as plane strayed deep into capital Updated: 5:19 a.m. ET May 25, 2005 WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave military officials the authority to shoot down, if necessary, a small plane that wandered into restricted airspace over the nation's capital May 11, according to two senior federal officials. For 11 intense minutes, customs aircraft and military fighter jets tried to intercept the Cessna 150 and determine whether the pilots were confused and lost or were targeting Washington. Military officials never deemed the aircraft to be hostile, but White House and U.S. Capitol officials grew more concerned as it flew within three miles of the executive mansion. The plane, one of the federal officials said, came within "15 to 20 seconds" of being downed before its pilots finally heeded repeated orders to turn away from the city. The new details, also corroborated yesterday by a senior federal law enforcement official briefed on events, came as U.S. military and homeland security officials review the effectiveness of an air defense system established for the Washington area after the 2001 terrorist attacks. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because much of the air defense system is classified. As authorities piece together the lessons of the scare -- described by some officials as the closest the government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington since Sept. 11, 2001 -- they are confronting sensitive issues involving split-second decisions, communications and the federal chain of command. Against a light aircraft moving at a relatively slow 100 mph, with two evidently confused pilots, authorities were able to order the evacuation of the White House and Capitol complex only two to three minutes before the plane would have reached either. Outside analysts said it remains unknown what might happen against a larger, faster aircraft intending to evade defenders. "The question is, if it were a faster plane . . . whether or not the system would have been as responsive," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. Based on a Homeland Security Department chronology, it is unclear whether jet fighters would have been in position to take action against the Cessna before it reached the White House or Capitol. The Cessna penetrated a 16-mile-radius no-fly zone at 11:50 a.m.; F-16 fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base two minutes later. The White House and Capitol were evacuated just after noon, as the plane continued to approach. The fighters fired warning flares at the Cessna at 12:04 p.m., and it was diverted. Pentagon and Homeland Security officials have said the air defense system worked effectively during the crisis. But in a statement released Friday, the pilots said they had trouble communicating on the radio frequency that a customs helicopter crew signaled for them to use. Officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection confirmed the communications problems cited by the Cessna pilots, Hayden "Jim" Sheaffer, 69, and Troy Martin, 36, both of Pennsylvania. The frequency was unavailable in that patch of airspace, the officials said. CONTINUED: Emergency locator beacon ... Absent the F-16s, nothing (but possible ground based weapons) would have almost killed them. Semantics, perhaps, but negligently straying where bullets are threatened to be loosed is the fault of the pilot. Doggedly continuing on a flight path directly over downtown DC with military/interceptor aircraft in formation or circling is the fault of the pilot. There is little doubt that the Sheaffer made many mistakes, but that's no excuse for our government's implementation of a flawed security policy. All The Powers That Be have made great efforts to inform pilots of the rules of this airspace. Beyond dismantling it (which I want), I don't know what else they can do to educate pilots. The Visual Warning System is a step in the right direction, but even after they publish it in the AIM as they've indicated, the pilots have to read/hear about it to know what to do. Because the ADIZ does nothing to protect the White House except create the public perception that something is being done at the expense of unnecessarily placing pilots in mortal danger, a responsible government would dismantle it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news According to this report, the order to shoot down the hapless little Cessna 150 was only 15 to 20 seconds away from occurring, because the policy relies on unreliable radio communications: The policy does not rely on "unreliable radio communications". If the policy were dependent on radio, then the Cessna 340 (?) that violated the ADIZ a week later would not have survived since its radios were fried by lightning. It essentially relies on air-to-air intercepts by government aircraft which do not depend on radio comms. Let's not forget these guys were WAY into restricted airspace by this point. They'd had WAY more than enough time to realize, "Oh, there's Baltimore and this big road beneath us is I-95 and, oh, that must be Washington up ahead." The fact that one of two radio frequencies attempted was unusable does not in any way convince me that was why they were "15-20 seconds away" from being shot down. What was the deal with the second frequency, anyway? I haven't seen any mention of the actual frequency, but I'm confident it wasn't the same 121.5 they'd just heard the ELT on. Listen. They *knew* they'd be dealing with the ADIZ. They should have known what to do when a military aircraft comes alongside on a standard intercept, yet they continued on essentially a beeline to downtown DC. *They* were the ones in the wrong here. Not the government crews doing everything but lasso the plane to get them to alter course. There is little doubt that the Sheaffer made many mistakes, but that's no excuse for our government's implementation of a flawed security policy. The "flawed policy" has been in place for years. Shaeffer knew it, screwed it and is now trying to play "country bumpkin". It's insulting. I do agree the ADIZ is nothing but a "Do Something" reaction of bureaucrats. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
John T wrote:
Listen. They *knew* they'd be dealing with the ADIZ. There's a fair amount of evidence that they didn't know but won't admit it. There was a post in the last two days to the effect that the FAA found a pre-9-11 chart in the aircraft and that the pilots intended to fly the old VFR exclusion through the class-B. I'm looking forward to AOPA's analysis of the hearings, once those are done. The FAA isn't going to tell what it knows until the hearings, and the PIC isn't ever going to tell what he knows. George Patterson "Naked" means you ain't got no clothes on; "nekkid" means you ain't got no clothes on - and are up to somethin'. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ANOTHER airspace incursion in D.C.? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 53 | November 17th 03 03:19 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
New Air Force guidance issued for frocking | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 24th 03 12:10 AM |
FAA Waiver / Security Statement | Ron Natalie | Piloting | 0 | July 24th 03 12:22 AM |