Yet another media outlet gets it WRONG

Skywise wrote:
Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted. Snipola

OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
it, won't I know so?


I don't see how you could miss it. It is a very distinctive howl.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Guy Elden Jr wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:
Guy Elden Jr wrote:


- Rumsfeld had ordered the plane to be shot down, and they were
literally seconds away from doing so...

I don't know if Rumsfeld was in the loop, but they were very
close to being shutdown.

I think that's a very big deal though. The claim that an order was
actually made is a far cry from just debating the point, which is
probably SOP anyway for any incursion that gets close enough to the
restricted zone at the center of the ADIZ.


- The "CFI" had his "license" revoked...

No CFI, but even REC.AVIATORS who should no better have been making
this error right and left.

It gives a very bad impression of instructors when they go calling this
guy an instructor. Call him a country bumpkin who should've known
better, because that's what he is.

- The "student pilot" would not be charged...

Have you heard anything to the contrary?

Point here (and granted, this is really more a technicality for pilots)
is that the student pilot was not, at the time of the incident, acting
in the capacity of a student pilot. He couldn't have been, because the
guy who was acting as PIC was not an instructor. So the whole scenario
that this radio station described was factually wrong on several
accounts, and paints a very different picture... i.e., "instructor &
student" vs "pilot and passenger".

Don't bet on that. If FAA wanted the student certificate, they'd have it
and it would be up to him to try to get it back in court. Even when the
lawnchair nutcase with the balloons survived his stunt, FAA said that they
would have cancelled any certificates he had because that's all they could
really do. But he didn't have any.

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

You'd think so, yes.

I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
it, won't I know so?

Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
armchair pilot.

No, it's a good question and it illustrates why it seems that the folks in
the C150 weren't the only people with their heads up their butts that day.

Pete

"Skywise" wrote in message


I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
it, won't I know so?

Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
armchair pilot.

Keep up.

The Blackhawk crew asked the Cessna to tune to a second frequency after
noticing the issue on 121.5. Shaeffer, the Cessna pilot, claims an
inability to talk to them on that frequency until he'd turned 90 degrees.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:35:40 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

Snipola
Other reports have indicated that 121.5 MHz was in use by an
unidentified ELT signal at the time communications were attempted.
Snipola

OK. That explains that. My question then is wouldn't the
Blackhawk crew have noticed the ELT signal on their radios?

I can't speak for the Blackhawk crew, but one would expect so.

I mean, if I tun my receiver to 121.5 and there's an ELT on
it, won't I know so?

If the ELT signal were strong enough to interfere with communications
between two aircraft in formation flight, I would think it could be
heard by both of them.

Sorry if it's an obvious question...I'm still just an
armchair pilot.

No need to apologize.

The point is, the governments shoot-down policy for intruding aircraft
relies to a great extent on two way radio communications. At least it
seems to have in this case. To base a lethal policy on an unreliable
method of communications is half-baked at best, and displays the
government's lack of concern for the welfare of its citizens at worst.

Larry Dighera wrote:

It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.

It does not. There are visual signs.

Stefan

On Fri, 27 May 2005 10:17:47 +0200, Stefan
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:

It relies upon radio communications that are inherently unreliable.

It does not.

It seems to have to some extent in this case. And that failure in
establishing communications apparently resulted in delaying the Cessna
from diverting course away from ground based weapons and certain
death.

There are visual signs.


That is true also. However, I have not read/heard reports of the
standard/documented* visual signs being successfully given in this
case.

In this case, apparently initially attempting to use radio
communications to communicate with the pilot of the Cessna 150 failed
resulting in the aircraft continuing deeper into the White House FRZ.
The F-15 intercept aircraft had to resort to the deployment of flairs
(an undocumented procedure outside what pilots are taught to expect in
intercept situations) to cause the Cessna to change course. Should
the flight have continued 15 to 20 seconds longer without changing
course, government spokesmen have said the order to shoot it down
would have been given. Such a close encounter with our government's
lethal force makes me uncomfortable, and calls into question the
adequacy of the intercept procedures as they are currently written.

From the information (of admittedly questionable credibility) I've
seen, it appears the PIC's judgment in intentionally launching without
being current to carry passengers, with a pre-9/11 chart, was notably
poor. It appears to me, that he hadn't been aloft for a good length
of time, and his lack of currency resulted in his flight becoming a
hazard to aerial navigation and causing a disruption of governmental
decorum. But I don't consider those offences to warrant a death
sentence.

So while this case reflects badly on GA pilots, it also points out the
indiscretion of the security policy currently in place in the vicinity
of our nation's capital and those who drafted it.



* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...intercept.html

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.

What if the C-150 had gotten close enough to the White House to
trigger ground fire as a result of its inability to communicate via
radio? Would you still characterize the policy as having worked?

Nope. But it didn't work out that way.

If you're arguing that the margin of error was a little slim and shows flaws
with relying on radio communications, I might agree. Except, there's no way
to hook a landline to an airplane, or board it, so using radio to
communicate with it is more or less necessity, isn't it?

'Course, publishing the ADIZ, TFRs, FARs, requiring weather briefing and
expecting a certificated pilot to be able to navigate in VFR don't seem to
have worked either.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.
-c

On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:50:00 -0700, "gatt"
wrote in ::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

It worked. The plane was diverted, nobody was killed,
the media made a bunch of money and an idiot lost his certificate.

What if the C-150 had gotten close enough to the White House to
trigger ground fire as a result of its inability to communicate via
radio? Would you still characterize the policy as having worked?

Nope. But it didn't work out that way.

It hasn't worked out that way yet. But the lethal force dictum has
only been in place for a few years so far. Given the narrow margin
the Cessna flight escaped tragedy, I would expect that someone will
get shot down for no good reason within the coming decades.

If you're arguing that the margin of error was a little slim and shows flaws
with relying on radio communications, I might agree.

Thank you.

Except, there's no way
to hook a landline to an airplane, or board it, so using radio to
communicate with it is more or less necessity, isn't it?

It's only a necessity if you consider the security measures effective
in stopping terrorist activity. I find it difficult to see how the
current security policy accomplishes what it purports to address.
More intelligent people need to reassess what measures might be more
effective, IMO.

'Course, publishing the ADIZ, TFRs, FARs, requiring weather briefing and
expecting a certificated pilot to be able to navigate in VFR don't seem to
have worked either.

Humans make mistakes; it's human nature. If those mistakes intrude on
the rights or safety of others, they should be made to compensate
those affected by their mistakes/inelegance. In this case, the
disruptive evacuation in DC was a result of misguided security
officials/policy, and the only threat to the safety of others occurred
as a result of those misguided security officials/policy not the
Cessna PIC.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.

I have no sympathy for the Cessna PIC at all, but I don't consider
that to be the issue here.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:


Humans make mistakes; it's human nature. If those mistakes intrude on
the rights or safety of others, they should be made to compensate
those affected by their mistakes/inelegance. In this case, the
disruptive evacuation in DC was a result of misguided security
officials/policy, and the only threat to the safety of others occurred
as a result of those misguided security officials/policy not the
Cessna PIC.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy.

I have no sympathy for the Cessna PIC at all, but I don't consider
that to be the issue here.

I agree with Larry here. It seems that the entire security apparatus of
this country is run by a combination of Chicken Little and Fearless
Fosdick.

For those who don't remember, Fearless Fosdick was the Al Capp takeoff
on Dick Tracy, who shot "criminal jaywalkers" while ignoring real
criminals. Everyone knows the story of Chicken Little.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.