Military Was Set To Down Cessna

[poadeleted3]

You may very well be right about GA not being worth the risk near the capital. But it's too bad one of the main reasons it may not be worth the risk is because of the easily remedied, slip shod pilot's NAV & procedures, usually only to suit their own self centered sport/business agenda.

This is particularly onerous for our present USA GA freedoms concomitant with the implementation of the new LSA training requirements which allow pilots in the air PIC with, of all things, LESS NAVIGATION TRAINING !

How pathetic to endure the huge GA losses above simply because so many pilots are too cheap for basic NAV training and for subsiquent meticulous following of those proceedures, to conceed to the insecure politicians the boundaries of a few hundred square miles of airspace in the name of the illusion of the security of their constituents.

It seems to me to be worse to have to endure such losses simply because Americans do not have the courage required to continue to live as a free people, and are willing to let the government murder us and our kids for violating the rules set forth by some government agency.

 

[woodstock]

Keep in mind that a big chunk of the incursions have been CFI's and commercial pilots, not just Privates, so the problem isn't just pilot certification level. Many of the incursions are folks who are aware of the ADIZ but don't want to go through the hassle of filing, so they try to sneak around the edge with six feet between their wingtip light and the ADIZ boundary. Until people start allowing for the inaccuracies of navigation, charting, and the radars used to enforce the zone, this stuff will keep happening. Like I said before, if you don't file, give it 5 miles.

how the hell can anyone eyeball it that closely? with my CFI we wait til we are well past it before even making the call. and to come back - start wayyyyyyyyy early on the call. ditto climbing higher as Class B goes up - we are nearly to the NEXT ring before I'll climb to the "allowed" level for that particular ring. better safe than sorry.

 

[gismo]

This won't make a blind bit of difference. The people causing the problems are not those who are following the rules, flying in the ADIZ, but those who blunder on in whether by mistake or ignorance or incompetence. Changing the rules and requiring checks etc will never stop this, it will just further inconvenience those of us who manage to fly the ADIZ legitimately and without problems.
Stephen.

I agree. More training, more rules, etc. won't cure the main problem which is pilots making mistakes. As much as I'd hate to see an otherwise good pilot lose his certificates and/or a bunch of money for making a navigational error, I believe that applying the most severe civil penalties would probably have the greatest chance of minimizing the problem. Today it seem the ADIZ doesn't get the respect it deserves, possibly because we tend to equate it to just another bit of SUA. OTOH, stupid pilots or good pilots having a brain fart probably wouldn't be deterred if the penalty for an illegal ADIZ incursion was life in prison so I doubt that this would work all that well either if the goal is to eliminate all incursions. Probably the only way to do that would be a physical barrier.

Maybe the "solution" is to require all airplanes flown east of the Mississippi to have an "ADIZ detector" on board that blasts the cockpit with Klaxon sounds if you get within two miles of the border and indicates which way to turn to avoid penetration.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

one of the Phantoms collided with the Baron when the Baron made an unexpected turn into the fighter as the fighter was breaking off.

IIRC, the irony of that particular tragedy was that the turn was unexpected to the F-4 pilot, his wingman, and the controller working their flight. The turn was not unexpected to the Baron pilot or the controller working the Baron--the controller ordered the turn. I believe it was discussed in a book who's title I can't remember, but the chapter title was something akin to "Don' mess with the green machine".

 

[poadeleted3]

snip

I think that (shutting down GA in the ADIZ) is a really bad idea. First, it parallels the same wrong mentality that pervades the non flying public: "Those planes are just useless toys of the rich and should be banned because they don't do me any good". Second, it punishes far more "innocents" than wrongdoers and IMO that's just plain wrong. Third, once you open that door, it will expand until the effect is the same as you were trying to avoid EG the grounding of all GA.

I have no doubt that many pilots think shutting down GA in the ADIZ is a bad idea. It is inconvenient and bad for some of their livelihoods. Further, it is justified by no realistic security concerns. However, I am far less interested in keeping GA flying than I am avoiding the ineveitable action of having our government shoot down some lost family in response to the public pressure they received over the Smoketown bandits. The long term consequences of that are far more severe than limiting our hobby. If you travel for business, drive or take the airlines. As for punishing innocents, I consider death a far harsher punishment than finding a new hobby.

I think I am going to email my sentiments to my Senators today. I feel strongly that our Government must not be allowed to engage in summary executions of American citizens. Such actions may well ignite an already simmering civil war, and would certainly drive us closer by driving the final nail in the coffin of one of our most basic civil liberties. Shutting down the ADIZ would allow more time to identify and challenge anyone who violates it, and hopefully avoid such summary executions. There are those who say such actions are justified because the ADIZ is a war time action. If this is truly war, we should act like it. There is no excuse for toys being allowed to create risk to our capital.

 

[BillG]

But what does it mean to "shut down GA in the ADIZ"? People will still wander in there, and then what? Same consequence as now, whatever that turns out to be...

 

[poadeleted3]

But what does it mean to "shut down GA in the ADIZ"? People will still wander in there, and then what? Same consequence as now, whatever that turns out to be...

It allows ample time to intercept and identify intruders. With that time available, they can turn aside an intruder in ample time, with no need to make a hurried shoot/no shoot decision.

 

[Greebo]

I don't quite see how shutting down GA in the ADIZ allows any more time to check out intruders than under the current model?

 

[BillG]

It allows ample time to intercept and identify intruders. With that time available, they can turn aside an intruder in ample time, with no need to make a hurried shoot/no shoot decision.

How would it be any different than it is now? Different rules, same people screwing 'em up...

 

[poadeleted3]

How would it be any different than it is now? Different rules, same people screwing 'em up...

No distractions to deal with, no wondering if the guy is somehow authorized, fewer targets to deal with. It worked for them before, it will again. They didn't want us back in there to begin with because it made their jobs harder.

 

[grattonja]

It allows ample time to intercept and identify intruders. With that time available, they can turn aside an intruder in ample time, with no need to make a hurried shoot/no shoot decision.

I fear that shutting down the ADIZ will simply make the entire airspace a place where they can, and at some point will, shoot someone down. The air above DC is still just air. No matter what we call that air, it cannot be made incursion proof. If someone is being really dumb they simply cannot turn them aside. That was nearly fatally proven with the two guys from Smoketown. It took two rounds of flares for that to happen. And they almost didn't turn then, from what we all know.

As some have said in this string, shutting down the airspace will not keep stupid people from being stupid. As I have said in posts in the past, no amount of government legislation can stop stupidity from happening.

I agree with you, though, that innocent citizens cannot be the cost of any of this experiment. I don't think that a feeling of security can be purchased at that price any more than you do.

It seems to me that the only thing that is going to positively affect this is something like mandatory Mode S transponders. I do not favor them, certainly. I don't always like big brother to know who I am and where I am. But, if big brother knows that the plane coming into that airspace is simply a C-150 with two guys on board, they can at least assess there is minimal threat. Maybe they have time to make a phone call or two and figure out who is actually in said plane. Knowledge and information are probably the best form of security here, rather than simply airspace "control".

Jim G

 

[Greebo]

I can see having fewer targets might help some - but with three major airports inside the ADIZ, Potomac is already extremely busy. Even on a nice quiet morning where there's almost no GA up, Potomac can get very very busy to the point that I can't get in a word edgewise while the commercial flights are getting talked to.

I agree, I dont wanna see anyone shot down - but I don't think using the ADIZ as a way to shut down GA in the HUGE area it covers. The ADIZ has added a heck of a lot of work to ATC and to pilots. The question in my mind is, is it serving any useful purpose?

I think the better argument is for the removal of the ADIZ - or containing it somewhat to focus on just DC, perhaps.

Of course, I'd be personally affected if GA shut down in the ADIZ. My home base is right inside it.

 

[gismo]

It seems to me that the only thing that is going to positively affect this is something like mandatory Mode S transponders. I do not favor them, certainly. I don't always like big brother to know who I am and where I am. But, if big brother knows that the plane coming into that airspace is simply a C-150 with two guys on board, they can at least assess there is minimal threat.

Jim, I can't see how Mode-S would be much help. The "bad guys" could simply take the transponder out of a C-150 and install it in the Baron/Cheyenne/Learjet they need to carry out their mission and if the folks on the ground were relying on the ID to classify the plane as harmless this subturfuge would get through.

 

[gismo]

IIRC, the irony of that particular tragedy was that the turn was unexpected to the F-4 pilot, his wingman, and the controller working their flight. The turn was not unexpected to the Baron pilot or the controller working the Baron--the controller ordered the turn. I believe it was discussed in a book who's title I can't remember, but the chapter title was something akin to "Don' mess with the green machine".

Also IIRC, the F4's made the intercept in IMC using onboard radar that wasn't up to the task. I also believe I read that the fighters ROE prohibitied such an intercept anywhere near as close as they were in IMC.

 

[gismo]

I have no doubt that many pilots think shutting down GA in the ADIZ is a bad idea. It is inconvenient and bad for some of their livelihoods. Further, it is justified by no realistic security concerns. However, I am far less interested in keeping GA flying than I am avoiding the ineveitable action of having our government shoot down some lost family in response to the public pressure they received over the Smoketown bandits.

Then we should shut down all GA flying (and the airlines for that matter) as that would be the only way to totally prevent a civil airplane shootdown. In any case closing the entire ADIZ to GA would probably lead to just that as the rest of the country slowly insists they have the same protection as our "leaders". I don't want to see anyone shot down either, but closing the Washington ADIZ to GA wouldn't by itself prevent that. It's mostly the planes that aren't supposed to be in the ADIZ that are causing the problems now, keeping out the legitimate ones wouldn't have much effect on the incursions, would it? Closing the area to lawful use wouldn't change the response time required to intercept the illegal ones, so how exactly would this reduce the chances of an "innocent" inadvertant penetration being attacked?


There is no excuse for toys being allowed to create risk to our capital.[/QUOTE]

 

[gismo]

No distractions to deal with, no wondering if the guy is somehow authorized, fewer targets to deal with. It worked for them before, it will again. They didn't want us back in there to begin with because it made their jobs harder.

Is there any case where any of those issues were a factor in dealing with a (post 9/11) incursion? AFaIK, the guys whose jobs are made harder by the ADIZ are the controllers, not the military.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

It's mostly the planes that aren't supposed to be in the ADIZ that are causing the problems now, keeping out the legitimate ones wouldn't have much effect on the incursions, would it? Closing the area to lawful use wouldn't change the response time required to intercept the illegal ones, so how exactly would this reduce the chances of an "innocent" inadvertant penetration being attacked?

Amen. Remember folks, the Smoketown Two planned to avoid the ADIZ--they simply didn't succeed in executing the plan. If the ADIZ was a no fly zone their encounter would have been no different.

 

[sere]

Keep in mind that a big chunk of the incursions have been CFI's and commercial pilots, not just Privates, so the problem isn't just pilot certification level. Many of the incursions are folks who are aware of the ADIZ but don't want to go through the hassle of filing, so they try to sneak around the edge with six feet between their wingtip light and the ADIZ boundary. Until people start allowing for the inaccuracies of navigation, charting, and the radars used to enforce the zone, this stuff will keep happening. Like I said before, if you don't file, give it 5 miles.

"If you don't file, Give it 5 miles". Never heard that one before. Good one Captn.

 

[grattonja]

Jim, I can't see how Mode-S would be much help. The "bad guys" could simply take the transponder out of a C-150 and install it in the Baron/Cheyenne/Learjet they need to carry out their mission and if the folks on the ground were relying on the ID to classify the plane as harmless this subturfuge would get through.

We are talking about not shooting down a "good" guy, rather than shooting down a "bad" guy.

Any Mode S t-ponder that was messed with would be a clear expression of intent. Not that I am a fan of Mode S transponder. I am really not very much in favor of that much "big brother".

Jim G

 

[gkainz]

If the bad guys can bring about us killing our own, they've won.

 

[poadeleted20]

Also IIRC, the F4's made the intercept in IMC using onboard radar that wasn't up to the task. I also believe I read that the fighters ROE prohibitied such an intercept anywhere near as close as they were in IMC.

The final report did fault the F-4 crew for going too close, but found they operated within the existing ROE. The ROE were subsequently changed to prevent a recurrence. See the full report at http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR84-07.pdf. However, the report agreed with your first statement:

"The F-4C weapons system has shortcomings in target resolution and is not capable of accurately displaying less than 1 mile separation."

Note that the crew closed to 1500 feet before starting their break-off.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I think this incursion where the guy has lost his PPL is a good step. Severe punishment for stupidity that endangers others -it shoud be painful to the stupidites ! It certainly is to most of the rest of us. He will have to essentially redo his entire PPL trainig now to ever fly PIC, which I consider fair. Unless some lawyer can get him off his responsibilities somehow, which is entirely possible.

Probably we'll still need to survive a few more deep incursions before the word gets out to the whole flying population that it's just not worth the trouble to fly dumb.

I doubt this guy in question will EVER successfully redo his PPL and would ask the oddsmakers of you out there how much we could safely bet that the 100s of incursions we've seen since 9/11 will drop significantly, since the widespread education of pilots due to this fiasco ?

 

[T Bone]

Wasn't there a "beating a dead horse" icon here when I signed up? B)

I think from what I've read, all that will be required for him to fly PIC again after one year is:

Pass the written exam
Pass a checkride (yes, I suspect whoever gets the DPE honors for the practical test here will be rather rigid in the PTS.... but passing will be the same as for any other applicant and will adhere to the written PTS)
And the requisite 3 hours of training with a CFI in preparation for said practical test.

They didn't wipe out his flight experience AFAIK, so all of his other requirements are met I think......

 

[poadeleted20]

I think from what I've read, all that will be required for him to fly PIC again after one year is:

Pass the written exam
Pass a checkride (yes, I suspect whoever gets the DPE honors for the practical test here will be rather rigid in the PTS.... but passing will be the same as for any other applicant and will adhere to the written PTS)
And the requisite 3 hours of training with a CFI in preparation for said practical test.

They didn't wipe out his flight experience AFAIK, so all of his other requirements are met I think......

More or less true.

"It appears that respondent is under the mistaken impression that, even if his conviction is vacated, his certificate might be subject to permanent revocation. He argues that he is 'now faced with the prospect of permanently losing his pilot and flight instructor certificates even if his criminal conviction is vacated.' Respondent’s petition at 3 (emphasis in original). Simply put, respondent’s representation is inaccurate. The revocation of his airman certificates is not permanent. Rather, he is free to reapply for his certificates one year after the date of revocation, irrespective of whether or not his criminal conviction is vacated." (Administrator v. Butchkosky, Docket SE-12680 RM)


​

So in most cases, you can reapply for a certificate after one year, but there's no guarantee that you'll get it back. Of course, in some cases, say, falsification, the FAA could say that there is no evidence that the underlying issue of lack of trust can be addressed simply by reexamination.

In other cases, particularly those involving aerial transportation of illegal substances, reissuance is permanently denied by statutes other than the FAR's. "Under § 44710, however, and in contrast to the typical revocation order where a respondent may reapply after 1 year, there can be no future certificate issuance...section 44710, as pertinent, requires lifelong revocation in the case of a narcotics felony where the respondent served as an airman or was on an aircraft in connection with the offense." (Administrator v. Serrato, Docket SE-14774)

Further, even if he gets them back, the pilot will always have to check "yes" when asked if his pilot certificates have every been revoked, which pretty much ends any chance of employment as a pilot and makes obtaining insurance difficult if not impossible.

 

[grattonja]

Wasn't there a "beating a dead horse" icon here when I signed up? B)

I think from what I've read, all that will be required for him to fly PIC again after one year is:

Pass the written exam
Pass a checkride (yes, I suspect whoever gets the DPE honors for the practical test here will be rather rigid in the PTS.... but passing will be the same as for any other applicant and will adhere to the written PTS)
And the requisite 3 hours of training with a CFI in preparation for said practical test.

They didn't wipe out his flight experience AFAIK, so all of his other requirements are met I think......

From what I saw of the TV interview by this guy, I don't think the gravity of what happened, and the depth of his errors, has been realized yet. He clearly felt that a quick look at weather on AOPA was sufficient, and that he did what he needed to do to pre-flight and go. No mention at all of failing to meet one of the most basic requirements, 3 TOL within a few months.

That attitude will not help him to pass that which he must pass to get his license back. Before any DE will approve him, he will have to show proper aeronautical decision making skills. Something that it sure looks like he is not acknowledging he lacks.

I am one of the people who feel the odds are he remains grounded.

Jim G

 

[poadeleted20]

No mention at all of failing to meet one of the most basic requirements, 3 TOL within a few months.

I'm hearing rumors that Sheaffer's logbook has gone missing, thus the inability to prove 3 to/ldgs. Dunno about a flight review. Some inspector friends of mine say this is a legal tactic used sometimes when what is in the logbook would be worse than the lack of the logbook. BTW, anyone heard whether Sheaffer actually appealled the revocation, and, if so, whether the NTSB has done anything with it?

 

[grattonja]

I'm hearing rumors that Sheaffer's logbook has gone missing, thus the inability to prove 3 to/ldgs. Dunno about a flight review. Some inspector friends of mine say this is a legal tactic used sometimes when what is in the logbook would be worse than the lack of the logbook. BTW, anyone heard whether Sheaffer actually appealled the revocation, and, if so, whether the NTSB has done anything with it?

No word around here so far. But, then again, no one at S37 has seen either guy since this happened. Can't blame them either. From what I do know, it would not be surprising if there were not three TOLs.

Jim G

 

[wsuffa]

I'm hearing rumors that Sheaffer's logbook has gone missing, thus the inability to prove 3 to/ldgs. Dunno about a flight review. Some inspector friends of mine say this is a legal tactic used sometimes when what is in the logbook would be worse than the lack of the logbook. BTW, anyone heard whether Sheaffer actually appealled the revocation, and, if so, whether the NTSB has done anything with it?

The usual tactic for most regulatory agencies is to cite him for failure to do a flight review, failure to maintain currency, failure to have the proper endorsements, etc. Then it's up to him to prove that he was current & legal.

Regulatory law carries no burden of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[gismo]

We are talking about not shooting down a "good" guy, rather than shooting down a "bad" guy.

Any Mode S t-ponder that was messed with would be a clear expression of intent. Not that I am a fan of Mode S transponder. I am really not very much in favor of that much "big brother".

Jim G

I think I understand where you're coming from Jim, but you have to look at both sides. If it's easy to spoof the system into believing you are a C-150 then the authorities would have to ignore all such transponder ID derived information from good and bad suspects. There wouldn't be any way to determine if an aircraft's transponder were "messed with" without getting a visual on the aircraft and with that you can learn all the transponder would tell you. As Ed might say: "Ergo requiring Mode S won't help".

 

[grattonja]

I think I understand where you're coming from Jim, but you have to look at both sides. If it's easy to spoof the system into believing you are a C-150 then the authorities would have to ignore all such transponder ID derived information from good and bad suspects. As Ed might say: "Ergo requiring Mode S won't help".

I guess one thing that we all agree on is that there is no really viable way to "control" airspace, to make it "safe" and to be able to actually stop incursions.

I think we give terrorists too much credit for electronic skills. So far they have proven able to deliver loads of fuel in big aircraft and fairly basic but powerful bombs on the ground. That's all. But I don't underestimate them, either.

As I said in my previous posts, I am not in favor of big brother knowing where I am. But, then again, the FBO at RUT watched my progress IFR on their computer last week, and knew I was getting a headwind. So... Privacy may prove as illusory as security.

Jim G

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I guess one thing that we all agree on is that there is no really viable way to "control" airspace, to make it "safe" and to be able to actually stop incursions.

I think we give terrorists too much credit for electronic skills. So far they have proven able to deliver loads of fuel in big aircraft and fairly basic but powerful bombs on the ground. That's all. But I don't underestimate them, either.

As I said in my previous posts, I am not in favor of big brother knowing where I am. But, then again, the FBO at RUT watched my progress IFR on their computer last week, and knew I was getting a headwind. So... Privacy may prove as illusory as security.

Jim G

Not to worry !

Stingers are illegal for terrorists, and they probably wouldn't know how to use one from a plane anyway... <G>.

 

[AdamZ]

Heres a question. Would the Gov't have admitted the freq the interceptors gave the 150 was a bad or jammed Freq if they had indeed splashed the plane?

 

[poadeleted3]

Heres a question. Would the Gov't have admitted the freq the interceptors gave the 150 was a bad or jammed Freq if they had indeed splashed the plane?

The government still has not admitted it acted wrongly when it ordered the death of an unarmed woman accused of no crime, and decorated the murderer who shot her in the face while breast feeding her child. Had the US Marshall's involved in that fiasco lied on the stand as the BATF and FBI agents did, Randy Weaver would be in jail and we'd never have known the truth of what happened there.

They've accused the folks in Waco of crime after crime to cover their activities, yet have produced evidence of no crimes. They tried to silence the sheriff who had peacefully arrested David Koresh several times when he asked why they raided the house so violently and fired the first shots on it's occupants, a raid that produced a stunning number of needless deaths.

I'm assuming your question was rhetorical.

 

[sere]

I think this incursion where the guy has lost his PPL is a good step. Severe punishment for stupidity that endangers others -it shoud be painful to the stupidites ! It certainly is to most of the rest of us. He will have to essentially redo his entire PPL trainig now to ever fly PIC, which I consider fair. Unless some lawyer can get him off his responsibilities somehow, which is entirely possible.

Probably we'll still need to survive a few more deep incursions before the word gets out to the whole flying population that it's just not worth the trouble to fly dumb.

I doubt this guy in question will EVER successfully redo his PPL and would ask the oddsmakers of you out there how much we could safely bet that the 100s of incursions we've seen since 9/11 will drop significantly, since the widespread education of pilots due to this fiasco ?

I wished I could agree with you that this punishment is a way to put an end to these mistakes. However, I don't believe it for one minute. Since they started all of these restrictions and TFR's how many pilots have been busted. The number is large I am sure and as long as people make mistakes it will continue to happen. I still feel that the terrorist won one of there objectives as they sure have had a outrageous effect on our economy and way of life.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I wished I could agree with you that this punishment is a way to put an end to these mistakes. However, I don't believe it for one minute. Since they started all of these restrictions and TFR's how many pilots have been busted. The number is large I am sure and as long as people make mistakes it will continue to happen. I still feel that the terrorist won one of there objectives as they sure have had a outrageous effect on our economy and way of life.

Yes, the number is large, too large but, the punishments are very mild, so no real significant learning takes place in meaningful numbers.

Our otherwise great USA society has been headed in this general direction for scores of years, 9/11 being just another albeit massive, ingredient to only accelerate the preexisting process.

 

[T Bone]

Since they started all of these restrictions and TFR's how many pilots have been busted

Now another question. How many Terrorists? Busted trying to penetrate the ADIZ I mean. None that I've heard of. It needs to be abollished! It is ineffective, and it is costly. And it is essentially useless.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

(essentially a REPEAT FROM "Letter I wrote to Senator" thread) :

The letters are very pretty but I'm safe in assuming there was no significant $K checks attached, so what GA could use is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more letters against the ADIZ, for whatever reasons suit the writers fancy.

Last year ~4 TFR type zones were drastically reduced in size in Washington State (the other Washington) after us locals in addition to AOPA and some others got a letter writing campaign going. The letters could be written online, but it was said it helped more to also mail in a hard copy.

Many wrote multiple times and I think we got about 400 or more letters printed online, brief and all against the TFR's huge size, from mostly locals, but a few from across the USA. It seemed to work. They're all very small no fly areas now.

 

[wsuffa]

Now another question. How many Terrorists? Busted trying to penetrate the ADIZ I mean. None that I've heard of. It needs to be abollished! It is ineffective, and it is costly. And it is essentially useless.

And since no terrorists have attacked Washington, it is clearly doing it's job. Therefore, it ought to remain.

That is the logic of a politician.

 

[Richard]

And since no terrorists have attacked Washington, it is clearly doing it's job. Therefore, it ought to remain.

That is the logic of a politician.

I've always thought it was like that.

"Here, try this ointment."

"Why?"

"It stops skin rash."

"Well, I don't have any skin rash."

"See, it's working already."

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Here we go pilots... :

http://cryptome.org/faa080405.txt

Deadline for input on DC Adiz is Nov. ~2, 2005