Could training at a towered airport have prevented the ADIZ bust

George Patterson wrote:
G. Sylvester wrote:
I don't know why he finds that amazing. I've made the trip from New
Jersey to Knoxville, TN several times without speaking to any
controllers except those at Knoxville. That's over 600 miles each way.
The only other radio calls I made were the usual ones ("three miles
out", "entering downwind", etc.) at my untowered fuel stop. When I flew
down to Fort Myers, I talked to Orlando on the way down. On the way
back, I didn't bother -- just went under it. Many other trips -- same
procedure.

I said amazing. I did not say 'surprising.' Of course he knows it's
not abnormal. Just that after talking to ATC for a thousand or whatever
number of hours per year, he finds it amazing that he can go up flying
and never talk to anyone. He's so used to it, it is just amazing that
he is not required to. It's not like he was blown away.

So interesting that people are saying "I can fly 600nm and never talk to
anyone." Many people said that how can there be people who don't know
how to talk to ATC. Well there's your answer. You don't have to and
some choose not to so they lose their skills.

Gerald

In article ,
Jack Allison wrote:
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
the radio.

What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?

Observation. I live in an area surrounding a large Class B airport, and
there are plenty of pilots who rarely, if ever, use the radio at
non-towered airports. These same pilots don't venture near towered
airports or the Class B because they don't want to talk on the radio.
They also typically don't venture out if the wind is stronger than
"calm" and/or if there are clouds in the sky.

I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
on the radio. Many of the flight schools at non-towered airports around
here have dried up, leaving the mega-schools at the larger towered
airports for flight training.



JKG

In article r6Oge.76216$WI3.72033@attbi_s71,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Mary and I fly from an uncontrolled airfield, are not instrument-rated, and
talk to ATC on nearly every flight.

And we're in Iowa -- supposedly the far corner of the galaxy.

And you're also fairly "new" pilots. When I started training 10 years
ago, I had a young instructor who was comfortable on the radio, so I
became comfortable on the radio. I was taught to use flight following
on every flight, and was comfortable listening and talking from day 1.

I don't notice the problem so much from younger folks who have been
trained by younger folks, but I do notice it quite a bit in the folks
who have been flying for 30 or 40 years, are not instrument rated, and
only go out when the sun shines. Not sure whether the problem is
comfort level or attitude, but if that were me, I wouldn't be flying
around busy controlled airspace with an ADIZ overlay if I wasn't
comfortable at least LISTENING to the right frequencies.



JKG

In article ,
"Dave Stadt" wrote:
If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
the radio.



JKG

That's simply not true.

It simply is true, in my experience. The fact is that if you fly from a
non-towered airport in VFR conditions, it is not a requirement that you
talk to anyone. Many folks do just that.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
on the radio.

I would say they talk more even outside of aviation. Kids these days can't seem
to do without conversation for more than a few minutes -- seems like they always
have a cell phone stuck in their ear. Seems to me that the older the person on a
phone in a public place is, the more likely it is that the conversation is
necessary.

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'.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:wcche.44$Vu6.8@trndny03...
Matt Barrow wrote:

Would an A2A missile be able to lock on the exhaust of a C150?

I would lay heavy odds that they're not using heat-seekers in the ADIZ.
Too big a chance that it would lock into a turbine coming into Dulles or
Reagan. Almost certainly they're armed with missiles that use a visual
lock on the target.

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'.

AFAIK, there are no A2A missles in the US inventory that are targeted
visually.

You have heat seakers (AIM9x), passive radar (AIM7) and active radar missles
(AMRAAM.) Maverick missles have a TV-guided version but they are used
against armor.

One very short squeeze of the trigger would fire enough 20mm to bring down
just about any light single.

Which brings up this question: Why did they need the F16s at all? Aren't
the Blackhawks armed with 20mm guns mounted in the doors? Did they not
know the type of aircraft until the F16s arrived on station or did the helo
get a viz ID first? If so, why not call off the F16s? The Blackhawk
probably could have blown the C150 down with rotor wash on it's own.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Michael Houghton wrote:
I call bull**** on you.
First for calling it "kidnapping".

OK, "kidnapping" was overstated. Change it to "seized by force and
intimidation".

Second for
misrepresenting the placement of the rifle

What part of "pointing an assault rifle inches from the boy's face" was
misrepresented?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/l...an/elian_a.jpg

(and conveniently ignoring
the important (and easily seen) placement of the trigger finger).

Oh that's right, with the barrel of an assault rifle pointed inches
from his face, Elian was able to remain calm and unfrightened because
he noticed that the agent's trigger finger was one inch away from the
trigger. It was nice to know this fact afterwards, but during the
situation it was irrelevant where the trigger finger was or whether the
rifle was even loaded.

Well, you only addressed my example. So does that mean you concur with
the first part of my statement? "This kind of treatment is routine. If
this is the worst case of unnecessary force used by law enforcement,
then we're in really good shape."

"Bucky" wrote in message
oups.com...
Michael Houghton wrote:
I call bull**** on you.
First for calling it "kidnapping".

OK, "kidnapping" was overstated. Change it to "seized by force and
intimidation".

Second for
misrepresenting the placement of the rifle

What part of "pointing an assault rifle inches from the boy's face" was
misrepresented?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/l...an/elian_a.jpg


I'd say it was more at the chest of kid. But to take up for the agents who
went in. They didn't know who or what was in that closet.

It's pretty self-evident that a significant number of pilots avoid 2 way
radio use and the airports that require it. Anyone dismissing this
theory out of hand has their head in a hole.

I was guilty of it for 2 years. After flying gliders for 15+ years
where we use the radio constantly but almost never with ATC, I
re-entered the ASEL community. I avoided ATC whenever possible and as
others have pointed out, you can fly almost anywhere without talking to
anyone. And I live under the outer edge of a Class C. No problem with
CTAF, just no ATC. I came to understand that my behavior was stupid.

As others have stated, an instrument rating is excellent radio training.

A good way to shock under 40 pilots is to tell them that "no one" used
headsets back in the day. How stupid was that!

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Jack Allison wrote:

Jonathan Goodish wrote:


If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
the radio.

What do you base this theory on? Speculation? Gut feel? Facts?


Observation. I live in an area surrounding a large Class B airport, and
there are plenty of pilots who rarely, if ever, use the radio at
non-towered airports. These same pilots don't venture near towered
airports or the Class B because they don't want to talk on the radio.
They also typically don't venture out if the wind is stronger than
"calm" and/or if there are clouds in the sky.

I will say that the "younger" pilots around here seem to have more
towered-airport training, and appear to be less inhibited about talking
on the radio. Many of the flight schools at non-towered airports around
here have dried up, leaving the mega-schools at the larger towered
airports for flight training.



JKG

Seems to me that he needed only a $140 gps with a proximity waypoint around
the Washington monument to keep him out of trouble.

Jay Honeck wrote in message ...
If you fly from an uncontrolled field and aren't an instrument pilot,
there is a good chance that you very rarely, if ever, talk to anyone on
the radio.

???

Mary and I fly from an uncontrolled airfield, are not instrument-rated, and
talk to ATC on nearly every flight.

And we're in Iowa -- supposedly the far corner of the galaxy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"