The President Is Not Making Any Friends With His 3,000 Square Mile TFRs

On 1 Sep 2005 22:00:29 -0700, "Yossarian"
wrote in .com::

He told the CFI that he tried 121.5 but got no response.

If that's true, it points out another flaw in our government's
potentially lethal security procedures. If we allow these ill
conceived anti-terror measures to continue, they will result in our
government killing its citizens yet. Osoma's got this administration
chasing its tail in public. Very disappointing.

I wonder if it's possible to locate any ATC tapes containing his 121.5
contact attempt. Does the FAA routinely record voice activity on the
Guard frequency?

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 00:03:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

And unlike the previous one, his lies got tens of thousands of people killed.

According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal and
has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones business but his.

When you consider the fact, that baby Bush is enlisting the assistance
of the only president to be impeached to help him with the Katrina
disaster, it reveals the triviality of the offence the GOP pined on
Clinton. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been similarly welcome
given his criminal activities.

On 2005-09-01, Larry Dighera wrote:
Given the fact that the F-16s had to fire flairs to get the pilot's
attention, I would have to agree with you. I'm wondering why he
didn't he tune to 121.5 MHz per intercept procedures. Did the CFI
brief those procedures?

You know, last time I was in the US (just a couple of weeks ago) I did
quite a lot of cross country flying. I listened to 121.5. On our trip
from SLC to Idaho, I heard calls from Cowboy approach call two separate
aircraft that busted a charted and hot piece of restricted airspace.

Then on my way from Snyder, TX. to Houston, I passed a few miles to the
south of the massive TFR around Bush's ranch. I knew it was hot because
I had checked the NOTAMs just before departing Snyder. I heard two
pilots bust that one too, being called on 121.5.

None of these pilots actually replied or changed heading. I was half
tempted to key the mike and tell the military controller, "You know, the
kind of pilot who busts a huge charted restricted area is probably not
the kind of pilot who listens to 121.5"... there was just no excuse with
these two restricted areas, both were prominently charted and well
known.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:37:34 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote in
::

"You know, the
kind of pilot who busts a huge charted restricted area is probably not
the kind of pilot who listens to 121.5"... there was just no excuse with
these two restricted areas, both were prominently charted and well
known.

Granted, many pilots fail to guard 121.5 MHz all the time, but when
you see an F-16 intercepting you, one would expect the intercepted
pilot to tune his radio, and establish communication.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. [...]

I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete


I need the distraction - thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to
recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to
maintain sanity.

Michael

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:24:34 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

I fully agree with your comments. But even if you buy into the whole "Great
Cigar Scandal" crap, those events don't come close to what has been going on
with the current administration. I figure, why allow anyone to suck the
^^^^^^^^^
conversation back to whether Clinton did what he was accused of, when the
^^^^^^^^^

*hehe* ... nice words in the same sentence :-)

point is just as easily made even if one assumes he did?

Allowing the argument to shift back to the Clinton era just permits people
to distract from current events.

Pete

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Originally Posted by Michael 182

...thinking back to Bill is so vastly superior to recognizing our current "leader" that I have to do it occasionally just to maintain sanity.

Gawd, I think I'm going to puke!