CNN's post-Cessna-invasion programming

"H.P." wrote:

The piece with the pilot reporter and the interview with Phil Boyer were
pretty fair, IMHO.

I agree. Compared to what we have seen from the media in the past, I thought
CNN did a pretty good job overall.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:50:00 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in ::

"Defending America: The threat that politicians and their policies pose to
security."

With the temperature rising on the nuclear activity in North Korea and
Iran, and the asinine antics of this administration, it's beginning to
feel like the apocalypse is nigh. :-(

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:50:34 GMT, "airman"
wrote in
::

to communicate with F-16s, there are
"400" possible frequencies to pick from.

Perhaps that is the number of frequencies that the military and civil
aircraft have in common, or the number of frequencies that are
actually in use, as opposed to the number the comm radio is capable of
tuning.

Update: However, the schmuck following Paula Zahn, Aaron Brown, is a being a
slime-weenie-jerk-ignorant-bloviating-gasbag. "...with the plane bearing
down on the Whitehouse..." he says.

His intelligence seems to be affected by the bad dental implant job that
he's been struggling with since the late 90's.


"H.P." wrote in message
...
The piece with the pilot reporter and the interview with Phil Boyer were
pretty fair, IMHO.


"Mike 'Flyin'8'" wrote in message
...
Watching this CNN fiasco now... What a joke... This Paula Zahn is a
complete moron.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0400, Charles O'Rourke
-net wrote:

Hi all -

According to the CNN web site, CNN will be having a program tonight
entitled, "Defending the Skies: The threat small planes and their pilots
pose to security." It's on at 8 PM EDT (on "Paula Zahn NOW"). Should
be interesting to find out how much of a threat we are.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/

Charles.
-N8385U


Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
See my online aerial photo album at
http://flying.4alexanders.com

Larry,
I will have to agree with you it sure does look gloomy, Iran would be no
problem if we were not already stretched in Iraq. But I really worry about
North Korea, their Chinese buddies liked helping them out during the first
go around. And strategically it would behove the Chinese to help the North
Koreans again. That IMHO, could get mighty ugly.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
With the temperature rising on the nuclear activity in North Korea and
Iran, and the asinine antics of this administration, it's beginning to
feel like the apocalypse is nigh. :-(

("Icebound" wrote)
....followed by clamors for interviews.....

Is it possible to score a couple of grand, each interview???? Pay for a
few hours of rental???


Why not? It aint news, it's entertainment, and they're the main act - for
now.

Give 20/20 the exclusive and ABC would "buy" you a 152 - complete with a
moving map GPS ...product placement, costs ABC zip. g

Runaway bride is yeasterday's ...."news."


Montblack
Wonder what the sharks are eating these days?

Even packed with explosives, an airplane is not a good delivery vehicle
against concrete buildings. No velocity, no penetration. Just leaves a big
charred mark on the outside I would think.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....


Assuming it wasn't filled with explosives or a dirty bomb, just how much
damage could a Cessna 152 do to a building anyhow.

In article ,
"W P Dixon" wrote:
I will have to agree with you it sure does look gloomy, Iran would be no
problem if we were not already stretched in Iraq. But I really worry about
North Korea, their Chinese buddies liked helping them out during the first
go around. And strategically it would behove the Chinese to help the North
Koreans again. That IMHO, could get mighty ugly.


This isn't an international politics group, but Larry can't help taking
shallow pot-shots at the President for some reason.

Both Iran and North Korea are so skilled at propaganda, unless you're
deep into the intelligence community, I doubt that any of us has the
slightest picture of reality in those countries, nor the qualifications
to determine how much of a threat, if any, they pose at this point.


JKG

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if for once you came in here with some hard
data rather than your usual worthless suppositions?

The civilian aircraft have a maximuim of 760 legal channels, no more and no
less Some civilian aircraft have 2, 10, 90, 180. 360, 720, or 760 channels,
depending on how old their radios are.. Military aircraft equipped with
civilian radios have a maximum of 720 or 760 channels, no more and no less.

Jim


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:50:34 GMT, "airman"
wrote in
::

to communicate with F-16s, there are
"400" possible frequencies to pick from.

Perhaps that is the number of frequencies that the military and civil
aircraft have in common, or the number of frequencies that are
actually in use, as opposed to the number the comm radio is capable of
tuning.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:50:34 GMT, "airman"
wrote in
::

to communicate with F-16s, there are
"400" possible frequencies to pick from.

Perhaps that is the number of frequencies that the military and civil
aircraft have in common, or the number of frequencies that are
actually in use, as opposed to the number the comm radio is capable of
tuning.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:43:56 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote in
::

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if for once you came in here with some hard
data rather than your usual worthless suppositions?

The civilian aircraft have a maximuim of 760 legal channels, no more and no
less Some civilian aircraft have 2, 10, 90, 180. 360, 720, or 760 channels,
depending on how old their radios are.. Military aircraft equipped with
civilian radios have a maximum of 720 or 760 channels, no more and no less.


Wouldn't it be nice if you had some evidence that military aircraft
are equipped with civilian radios, or is that just supposition?