Officials Weighed Shooting at Errant Plane

[inav8r]

Meanwhile, national security officials were on the phone discussing whether to give the shootdown order.

It was "a real finger-biting period because they came very close to ordering a shot against a general (aviation) aircraft," one senior Bush administration counterterrorism official said.

"How many more seconds away or minutes — it was within a very small window where there would have been the decision," said the official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Full story can be read on Yahoo News (no subscription required).

 

[inav8r]

Does this not show you how clueless these "senior Bush administration counterterrorism officials" are? Why on gods earth would you even consider shooting down a Cessna 150...

 

[Iceman]

Does this not show you how clueless these "senior Bush administration counterterrorism officials" are? Why on gods earth would you even consider shooting down a Cessna 150...

hmmm... Why would you be scared of a 150lb man walking into a populated area, shaking with fear, wearing a large trench coat?

I for one think that they handled it very well. The pilots in the F-16 could have easily shot the plane down, however they decided that it was not a threat. If however the plane had one determined person, half fuel, and was 70 percent over gross (filled with ???) even a 150 could become a weapon. The last thing the country wants to say is if the plane is smaller than a 182 we will let it do whatever it wants.

I'm just saying the country and all of us pilots need to make sure we are making the right decisions at all times...no mistakes!

 

[poadeleted3]

Judging from the interview CNN has with the pilot, the decision not to shoot the plane down had been made before they ever intercepted. The plane had already been identified for what it was, and judged not a major threat.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

hmmm... Why would you be scared of a 150lb man walking into a populated area, shaking with fear, wearing a large trench coat?

I for one think that they handled it very well. The pilots in the F-16 could have easily shot the plane down, however they decided that it was not a threat. If however the plane had one determined person, half fuel, and was 70 percent over gross (filled with ???) even a 150 could become a weapon. The last thing the country wants to say is if the plane is smaller than a 182 we will let it do whatever it wants.

I'm just saying the country and all of us pilots need to make sure we are making the right decisions at all times...no mistakes!

Thanks for the shot of reality Chris !


A. Random crashing of small aircraft:

Not usually too dangerous to ground inhabitants.

B. Guided flight of small aircraft into ground inhabitants with malice:

Very Dangerous to ground inhabitants !

Any questions ?

 

[poadeleted3]

Thanks for the shot of reality Chris !


A. Random crashing of small aircraft:

Not usually too dangerous to ground inhabitants.

B. Guided flight of small aircraft into ground inhabitants with malice:

Very Dangerous to ground inhabitants !

Any questions ?

Very dangerous? Would you care to provide an example where more than one house was damaged? How bout just one case where a major building suffered more than cosmetic damage? We have several examples of aircraft being deliberately flown into ground targets with malice. Houses will burn, bad thing. Major buildings? Tampa Bay such an act required replacing a window, a file cabinet, and a desk. When a Cessna was deliberately flown into the White House, some grass required replanting, an a wall needed a splash of paint.

However, if you CAN provide examples that show small aircraft to be "very dangerous to ground inhabitants", it is time to ground the GA fleet while we are at war, and I will send such a letter, as a certified pilot, to the press and my congressional representatives today.

 

[Anthony]

A GA airplane is no more of a threat (actually less due to weight considerations) than a car, truck or boat. When they start restricting cars and trucks from DC, I will agree that the ADIZ is fair. Until then, I will continue to lobby my legislators to eliminate the ADIZ.

Why go through the hassle of stealing or renting a plane and get the training to fly it when you can go to Uhaul and rent a truck and fill it with whatever you want and just drive to the Capitol.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Very dangerous? Would you care to provide an example where more than one house was damaged? How bout just one case where a major building suffered more than cosmetic damage? We have several examples of aircraft being deliberately flown into ground targets with malice. Houses will burn, bad thing. Major buildings? Tampa Bay such an act required replacing a window, a file cabinet, and a desk. When a Cessna was deliberately flown into the White House, some grass required replanting, an a wall needed a splash of paint.

However, if you CAN provide examples that show small aircraft to be "very dangerous to ground inhabitants", it is time to ground the GA fleet while we are at war, and I will send such a letter, as a certified pilot, to the press and my congressional representatives today.

I don't think there are any examples, and we DON'T WANT any examples to happen, do we ?

"Examples" aren't necessary either. Just like it is not necessary to see an example of something torn up by a tornado to know it's something to stay away from.

Nor is it necessary, in spite of real danger under certain conditions, to ground the GA fleet anymore than to halt all auto, boat and foot traffic.

It's easy to joke with 20/20 hindsight. Those people at the Capitol only had foresight and heard that something was coming. I'd sure get away fast from a target like the capitol, the Pentagon, (remember the Pentagon 911 ?) or anywhere with a guided bomb of ANY size enroute to a location close to me.

Any ferry pilots out there who'll tell us the real max payload for a C150 or similar plane ? Ever see what a guided 500 # bomb can do ? Ever see (or imagine) what an empty C150 loaded with full fuel can do ? Or a row-boat with a 500# bomb ?

Then, considering the above, is there anyone else who'll say, "Yeah sure, fly that thing loaded with 'splosives right through our office window at us while we're at the desk."

I love aviation as a pastime/profession as much or more than any other pilot, but don't tell me these aircraft are harmless. Sure they're not a threat to lose sleep over... but not completely harmless either.

 

[poadeleted3]

A GA airplane is no more of a threat (actually less due to weight considerations) than a car, truck or boat. When they start restricting cars and trucks from DC, I will agree that the ADIZ is fair. Until then, I will continue to lobby my legislators to eliminate the ADIZ.

Why go through the hassle of stealing or renting a plane and get the training to fly it when you can go to Uhaul and rent a truck and fill it with whatever you want and just drive to the Capitol.

Exactly!

 

[wsuffa]

A GA airplane is no more of a threat (actually less due to weight considerations) than a car, truck or boat. When they start restricting cars and trucks from DC, I will agree that the ADIZ is fair. Until then, I will continue to lobby my legislators to eliminate the ADIZ.

Why go through the hassle of stealing or renting a plane and get the training to fly it when you can go to Uhaul and rent a truck and fill it with whatever you want and just drive to the Capitol.

Actually, Anthony, they already do restrict cars and trucks in a lot of places in DC. Trucks and busses have been banned from the road near the Pentagon, meaning they have a MUCH longer trek from Rosslyn to Crystal City. Streets around the White House & Capitol have been closed. You have to have your car trunk inspected when entering certain garages. A new barrier has been built around the Washington Monument to keep vehicles away.

I grew up in the DC suburbs. You simply can't go as many places now as you used to.

I will guarantee you that you can't get a U-Haul up close to the Capitol any more without a thorough inspection.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

We are dreaming if we imagine any amount of handwringing over this latest incident or any amount of pilot notification/laser light systems/even a shoot-down is going to stop the incursions. I think we have to look beyond the blaming of 'idiot' pilots and such to solve this problem. I don't claim to have the answer, but shrinking the no fly zones is a good start; completely removing them would be better. Obviously I think they provide no protection from a determined terrorist and their cost in terms of things other than just money is too great.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Generally true, except aircraft offer terrorists the obvious option of vectoring their malicious payload/aircraft itself into second story and above windows.

Roger that on the ADIZ.
It would be fair then, but still un-necessary and moreover, still in-effective.

Cars, truck, boats & bikes simply don't hold the sensationalism of Airp-lanes that the media and its bored, average viewers crave, in spite of irrational sensationalism's ongoing, damaging effects to their lives.

 

[wsuffa]

We are dreaming if we imagine any amount of handwringing over this latest incident or any amount of pilot notification/laser light systems/even a shoot-down is going to stop the incursions. I think we have to look beyond the blaming of 'idiot' pilots and such to solve this problem. I don't claim to have the answer, but shrinking the no fly zones is a good start; completely removing them would be better. Obviously I think they provide no protection from a determined terrorist and their cost in terms of things other than just money is too great.

Dave,

You forget Catch-22. While reducing/removing the ADIZ will reduce the number of incursions, the fact that there are incursions proves that there is a problem. Therefore it cannot be reduced or removed.

Shrinking the ADIZ might help, but it wouldn't have solved the problem in this case. These two folks managed to get close to the Capitol - and would have overflown it if left on course. The Capitol and White Houses were P-areas EVEN BEFORE 9/11.

bill

 

[DeeG]

Any ferry pilots out there who'll tell us the real max payload for a C150 or similar plane ? Ever see what a guided 500 # bomb can do ? Ever see (or imagine) what an empty C150 loaded with full fuel can do ? Or a row-boat with a 500# bomb ?

Well, I'm not a ferry pilot, but we do own a C150. Lets assume the terrorist would rent a plane, so there would probably not be much in the way of major modifications done to the plane to accept large fuel bladders, etc.

With full fuel, average sized pilot and right seat out, you'll have about another 200 lbs of useful load left. You could probably squeeze another 100 lbs in there if you tried. So, with about 600 lbs, and a strong enigne on a 'good' day, you will get airborne, but it will take a while. And the plane will handle like a beached whale. Not sure how much a mounting hardware for a 500# guided bomb weighs, but I wager you'll need something bigger than a 105 HP Continental to get it off the ground.

And like Joe said, just take a look at the damage (or lack thereof) that the 172 did in FL a while ago. Bet you can't even tell a plane hit the building anymore.

We do have a rowboat, but I've never used it so I don't know how much weight can be put in it.

The terrorists had it right. You want to create panic and damage? Use a BIG plane.

 

[Richard]

I know a guy who has a 125 gal tank in his C-150 right behind and to the right of his seat. For fish spotting. Don't know the year of the a/c.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I know a guy who has a 125 gal tank in his C-150 right behind and to the right of his seat. For fish spotting. Don't know the year of the a/c.

Thank You, Richard !

A C150 with fusealge capacity for over 800 POUNDS of FUEL ?!! I wonder if it could carry that much weight in explosives instead of fuel... hey wait a minute, fuel can 'spode too !!!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Well, I'm not a ferry pilot, but we do own a C150. Lets assume the terrorist would rent a plane, so there would probably not be much in the way of major modifications done to the plane to accept large fuel bladders, etc.

With full fuel, average sized pilot and right seat out, you'll have about another 200 lbs of useful load left. You could probably squeeze another 100 lbs in there if you tried. So, with about 600 lbs, and a strong enigne on a 'good' day, you will get airborne, but it will take a while. And the plane will handle like a beached whale. Not sure how much a mounting hardware for a 500# guided bomb weighs, but I wager you'll need something bigger than a 105 HP Continental to get it off the ground.

And like Joe said, just take a look at the damage (or lack thereof) that the 172 did in FL a while ago. Bet you can't even tell a plane hit the building anymore.

We do have a rowboat, but I've never used it so I don't know how much weight can be put in it.

The terrorists had it right. You want to create panic and damage? Use a BIG plane.

Your idea of mounting hardware & external bomb would look cool on a C150 or SkyHawk, but the 'sposives simply would go inside the cabin. It's not as complicated as all that.

But thank God, the misguided-moron in the Florida building case had simply, a bad aim with the plane. Great PR for us in GA in total, because the real potentially catastrophic consequences were overshadowed by the minimal damage inflicted by the pilot's poor aim and targeting intelligence.

Bigger payload in bigger plane ? Yep, would cause more initial damage, but subsiquent fire and probable building collapse would be the same.

 

[poadeleted3]

Thank You, Richard !

A C150 with fusealge capacity for over 800 POUNDS of FUEL ?!! I wonder if it could carry that much weight in explosives instead of fuel... hey wait a minute, fuel can 'spode too !!!

Fine. GA is too dangerous. As a security expert I know that every GA airport I've been to is woefully inadequate in it's security, and planes are far to easy to steal. I am going to use your posts, as a certified flight instructor, in my letter to my Senators to back up my contention that GA is too dangerous to be allowed given the current dangers we face.

 

[BillG]

I still wonder why it's worth going to all that bother when you can rent a truck or van and drive pretty much anywhere you want with far more payload, far more easily. I know it may be POSSIBLE to do some kind of damage with a small plane, but why bother??

 

[poadeleted20]

hey wait a minute, fuel can 'spode too !!!

No, it can't. Fuel VAPORS can explode, but only if the fuel/air mix and temperature are right and there is an adequate ignition source.

I was an invited speaker at the Transport Aircraft Fuel Flammability conference in DC after the TW800 accident, speaking about the various models to predict explosiveness and flammability in aircraft fuel tanks. In order to have an explosion, you need a VERY low fuel level in the tank along with a relatively high temperature in the tank. This was achieved in TW800 by the air conditioning packs (which radiate heat) under the virtually empty center body fuel tank, and then (most likely) having an electrical spark produced by one of a number of possible sources.

I'm not sure how you could duplicate this in a C-150. You'd need to have a big tank with very little fuel heated to WAY above ambient temperature and an ignition souce in the intact tank. Any ignition after impact would not create a significant overpressure once the tank was ruptured -- a hole of even a few square inches would prevent a true detonation from occurring, and without that overpressure, all you have is an attention-getting orange ball of flame with little destructive power (kind of like what you see in movie special effects).

Now, you COULD use this method to deliver a bunch of liquid fuel and start a serious fire (and it was that fire which brought down the WTC buildings by weakening the steel structures which then caved), but not a structure-smashing explosion, and fire doesn't do that much to the structure of a stone building like the White House or the Capitol anyway. Finally, there's a couple of orders of magnitude of difference between the 800 lb of fuel you're discussing here and the 80,000 lb or so of fuel the 767's were carrying on 9/11.

 

[MSmith]

As much as it may pain me to say this, I think I agree with Joe here.

There are lots of ways that terrorists can attack us. We've done a good job of mitigating most of the possibilities, but perfect security requires complete restriction of people.

How many lost backpacks have been found in malls? How many news articles about them? Remember that we've HAD a backpack terrorist attack (96 Olympics). As far as I know, there's never been a General Aviation terrorist attack (suicide, yes - but not a purposeful attack).

We'll never get past the fear until we decide NOT to give up an excessive amount of liberty in order to be safe.

The main reason that light aviation is suspect is that most people don't understand it. If they treated flying the same as driving, they'd chafe at restrictions (just as they did in NYC a few months after 9/11 when they were still searching every car at the tunnels and bridges).

 

[Iceman]

I still wonder why it's worth going to all that bother when you can rent a truck or van and drive pretty much anywhere you want with far more payload, far more easily. I know it may be POSSIBLE to do some kind of damage with a small plane, but why bother??

This is definatly true which is why we need to explain to people that aircrafts (all sizes) do not pose a high risk to our country. However, as many have posted in this thread the government needs to be prepared for all possibilities...from 150 to 210, civic to uhaul, jetski to large fishing boat. To the government, size should not make a difference the policy should be the same.

 

[Brian Austin]

No, it can't. Fuel VAPORS can explode, but only if the fuel/air mix and temperature are right and there is an adequate ignition source....

Amen. We regularly weld around fuel tanks, topping them off beforehand to avoid explosions. As long as there are no contained vapors, you're fine. The fuel in the tank even helps dissipate heat!

Personally, I'd be more worried about a C150 being used as an aerial applicator for an airborne pathogen over a sporting event. Given the speed and fuel limitations, though, it would hardly be the platform of choice. The terrorists would get a better terror effect by placing bombs in waste barrels at popular shopping malls across the country and detonating them simultaneously. Terror plus economic impact with minimal exposure from common household materials.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Fine. GA is too dangerous. As a security expert I know that every GA airport I've been to is woefully inadequate in it's security, and planes are far to easy to steal. I am going to use your posts, as a certified flight instructor, in my letter to my Senators to back up my contention that GA is too dangerous to be allowed given the current dangers we face.

"Potentially dangerous in malicious, capable hands ? Yes."

"Too dangerous for the public & GA ? No."

"Dangers and potential dangers completely eliminatable by expensive and restrictive security ? No."

There's the quotes.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

No, it can't. Fuel VAPORS can explode, but only if the fuel/air mix and temperature are right and there is an adequate ignition source.

I was an invited speaker at the Transport Aircraft Fuel Flammability conference in DC after the TW800 accident, speaking about the various models to predict explosiveness and flammability in aircraft fuel tanks. In order to have an explosion, you need a VERY low fuel level in the tank along with a relatively high temperature in the tank. This was achieved in TW800 by the air conditioning packs (which radiate heat) under the virtually empty center body fuel tank, and then (most likely) having an electrical spark produced by one of a number of possible sources.

I'm not sure how you could duplicate this in a C-150. You'd need to have a big tank with very little fuel heated to WAY above ambient temperature and an ignition souce in the intact tank. Any ignition after impact would not create a significant overpressure once the tank was ruptured -- a hole of even a few square inches would prevent a true detonation from occurring, and without that overpressure, all you have is an attention-getting orange ball of flame with little destructive power (kind of like what you see in movie special effects).

Now, you COULD use this method to deliver a bunch of liquid fuel and start a serious fire (and it was that fire which brought down the WTC buildings by weakening the steel structures which then caved), but not a structure-smashing explosion, and fire doesn't do that much to the structure of a stone building like the White House or the Capitol anyway. Finally, there's a couple of orders of magnitude of difference between the 800 lb of fuel you're discussing here and the 80,000 lb or so of fuel the 767's were carrying on 9/11.

Picky, picky, picky... <G>

You are correct, Sir.

'sploded and/or burning, that much octane through any building's widow:

VERY BAD THING.

 

[poadeleted3]

"Potentially dangerous in malicious, capable hands ? Yes."

"Too dangerous for the public & GA ? No."

"Dangers and potential dangers completely eliminatable by expensive and restrictive security ? No."

There's the quotes.

I like these better. There's not a reporter out there that couldn't make good story with a link to this page, and with these quotes.

"Thank You, Richard !

A C150 with fusealge capacity for over 800 POUNDS of FUEL ?!! I wonder if it could carry that much weight in explosives instead of fuel... hey wait a minute, fuel can 'spode too !!!"
________________________________________________________________

"Your idea of mounting hardware & external bomb would look cool on a C150 or SkyHawk, but the 'sposives simply would go inside the cabin. It's not as complicated as all that.

But thank God, the misguided-moron in the Florida building case had simply, a bad aim with the plane. Great PR for us in GA in total, because the real potentially catastrophic consequences were overshadowed by the minimal damage inflicted by the pilot's poor aim and targeting intelligence.

Bigger payload in bigger plane ? Yep, would cause more initial damage, but subsiquent fire and probable building collapse would be the same."
________________________________________________________________

"Generally true, except aircraft offer terrorists the obvious option of vectoring their malicious payload/aircraft itself into second story and above windows."
_________________________________________________________________

""Thanks for the shot of reality Chris !


A. Random crashing of small aircraft:

Not usually too dangerous to ground inhabitants.

B. Guided flight of small aircraft into ground inhabitants with malice:

Very Dangerous to ground inhabitants !

Any questions ?"

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

This is definatly true which is why we need to explain to people that aircrafts (all sizes) do not pose a high risk to our country. However, as many have posted in this thread the government needs to be prepared for all possibilities...from 150 to 210, civic to uhaul, jetski to large fishing boat. To the government, size should not make a difference the policy should be the same.

Size does matter to the guvmint.
The size of the population subset being regulated (and the SIZE of it's bankroll)

If we had even 10% of the USA population into GA like the <1% of population that are pilots, we'd have the battle won. Young Eagles, schools, PR, Sport Pilot GA may win in the end if we live long enough lives. I mean real long lives here.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I like these better. There's not a reporter out there that couldn't make good story with a link to this page, and with these quotes.

"Thank You, Richard !

A C150 with fusealge capacity for over 800 POUNDS of FUEL ?!! I wonder if it could carry that much weight in explosives instead of fuel... hey wait a minute, fuel can 'spode too !!!"
________________________________________________________________

"Your idea of mounting hardware & external bomb would look cool on a C150 or SkyHawk, but the 'sposives simply would go inside the cabin. It's not as complicated as all that.

But thank God, the misguided-moron in the Florida building case had simply, a bad aim with the plane. Great PR for us in GA in total, because the real potentially catastrophic consequences were overshadowed by the minimal damage inflicted by the pilot's poor aim and targeting intelligence.

Bigger payload in bigger plane ? Yep, would cause more initial damage, but subsiquent fire and probable building collapse would be the same."
________________________________________________________________

"Generally true, except aircraft offer terrorists the obvious option of vectoring their malicious payload/aircraft itself into second story and above windows."
_________________________________________________________________

""Thanks for the shot of reality Chris !


A. Random crashing of small aircraft:

Not usually too dangerous to ground inhabitants.

B. Guided flight of small aircraft into ground inhabitants with malice:

Very Dangerous to ground inhabitants !

Any questions ?"

I think the reporters and most media have been and are continuing to do a smashing job of misrepresenting the reality of GA even without adding to it the truths of the readily available knowledge of which I and others write.

 

[woodstock]

Joe, I need to go back and re-read Cathy's experiences with teaching the little kids about flying. once I'm (much) more knowledgeable I think I'm going to get involved with either mentoring or helping kids get involved with aviation. a lot of this stems from plain and simple ignorance I think.

 

[poadeleted3]

Joe, I need to go back and re-read Cathy's experiences with teaching the little kids about flying. once I'm (much) more knowledgeable I think I'm going to get involved with either mentoring or helping kids get involved with aviation. a lot of this stems from plain and simple ignorance I think.

That's a great idea. I was really surprised at how little it took to get they kids excited. As little as me flying around the school and then saying hi to them later, or one of the kid's grandfathers coming in and giving a talk about what it's like to be a pilot and mechanic. The little folks are into it, and through them you can sometimes reach their parents. I wish we could have taken the kids and parents to the airport, but the school's owner doesn't allow field trips like that In the meantime, come mid summer I'm hoping to get to take a couple of the kids and their parents flying.

Feel free to email Cathy and talk to her about it. She'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.

 

[DeeG]

How many lost backpacks have been found in malls? How many news articles about them? Remember that we've HAD a backpack terrorist attack (96 Olympics).

Don't even go there! You know how many calls a week we get for 'suspicious' packages? Backpacks, purses, trash bags that blow out of the back of a truck,empty cardboard boxes, even a box of trash that was sitting ON TOP of a TRASHCAN (someone may want to blow up that trashcan!!)

But, you never know, next time it might be real........

Dee
PS This came from the Cessna 150/152 mailing lists

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

How many lost backpacks have been found in malls? How many news articles about them? Remember that we've HAD a backpack terrorist attack (96 Olympics).

Don't even go there! You know how many calls a week we get for 'suspicious' packages? Backpacks, purses, trash bags that blow out of the back of a truck,empty cardboard boxes, even a box of trash that was sitting ON TOP of a TRASHCAN (someone may want to blow up that trashcan!!)

But, you never know, next time it might be real........

Dee
PS This came from the Cessna 150/152 mailing lists

Those bumper stickers are the rage out here on a NW pilot board. Cute, but dumb.

But maybe just what we need to help turn the public more to our side because it's their speed !

 

[gismo]

I know a guy who has a 125 gal tank in his C-150 right behind and to the right of his seat. For fish spotting. Don't know the year of the a/c.

750 lbs of fuel in a C-150??? Even if you could get off the ground solo which is doubtful, why would anyone stay in the air for 20 hours?

 

[Iceman]

750 lbs of fuel in a C-150??? Even if you could get off the ground solo which is doubtful, why would anyone stay in the air for 20 hours?

There are people who load the 150's to the max...not 750 lbs but a lot.

Try this link if you are interested.

"This was 500 lbs. over gross. The FAA had approved the increase of 30% over book weight. In spite of this, the night takeoff was an anticlimax. The little 150 lifted off in 400 meters and her climb performance was the same as would be expected on a highveld summer afternoon."

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

There are people who load the 150's to the max...not 750 lbs but a lot.

Try this link if you are interested.

"This was 500 lbs. over gross. The FAA had approved the increase of 30% over book weight. In spite of this, the night takeoff was an anticlimax. The little 150 lifted off in 400 meters and her climb performance was the same as would be expected on a highveld summer afternoon."

Thanks Chris...

That's one of the articles these guys with the bumper stickers and wussy attitudes about the weight lifting power available from little planes should read.

 

[poadeleted3]

Thanks Chris...

That's one of the articles these guys with the bumper stickers and wussy attitudes about the weight lifting power available from little planes should read.

Good grief, Dave, you've convinced us. Cessna 150s are the most dangerous frigging things on the planet. That's why they were chosen to take down the WTC, that's why the Air Force F-16 pilots shake in their boots at the thought of having to face down the terrible beast. We should all run and hide, shake and quiver at the thought of those little planes flying around willy nilly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Good grief, Dave, you've convinced us. Cessna 150s are the most dangerous frigging things on the planet. That's why they were chosen to take down the WTC, that's why the Air Force F-16 pilots shake in their boots at the thought of having to face down the terrible beast. We should all run and hide, shake and quiver at the thought of those little planes flying around willy nilly.

Sorry to give all ya'al such a fright Joe. It'll probably be okay after all.

I'm still betting the F16s will control their shaking boots of which you speak and make the kill if, God forbid, the time should ever come to that. (If they or the SAMs can get there on the malicious target in time)

 

[EHITCH]

Joe, I need to go back and re-read Cathy's experiences with teaching the little kids about flying. once I'm (much) more knowledgeable I think I'm going to get involved with either mentoring or helping kids get involved with aviation. a lot of this stems from plain and simple ignorance I think.

Elizabeth A:
I encourage you to get in touch with your local Girl Scouts council and discuss organizing an aerospace badge event for junior scouts -- I co-chaired our 99s-sponsored event in April for 150 girls and 50 of their parents and it was a whopping success. While the girls were learning about charts, ATC, gliders, aerodynamics, their parents were learning that GA is not just for rich folks and that anyone at any age can learn to fly. We had a ball, and NASA has all the teaching materials you would need. When you're ready, email me offline and I'll send you all the info we used. Anyone else is welcome to it too.
Elizabeth H (the other Eliz)

 

[tom.]

I'm still betting the F16s will control their shaking boots of which you speak and make the kill if, God forbid, the time should ever come to that. (If they or the SAMs can get there on the malicious target in time)[/QUOTE]

Much as everyone seems to want to see it, I hope it never happens. Pilots will make mistakes. F16s are impressive but it would be sad to see them used on one of our student pilots who makes a mistake. It will make for good TV and all the news stories will be quoted on these message boards. Then anyone who wants to do a search on aviation will find this stuff and think it's the whole story.

This whole reaction reminds me of a cat who chases a mouse under a doorway. The cat waits for hours for another mouse by the same doorway. There could be 20 more mice elsewhere in the barn but he won't see them.

I was at the airport the other day and, instead of the weather channel they were riveted to Fox News for hours. Sad.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm still betting the F16s will control their shaking boots of which you speak and make the kill if, God forbid, the time should ever come to that. (If they or the SAMs can get there on the malicious target in time)

Much as everyone seems to want to see it, I hope it never happens. Pilots will make mistakes. F16s are impressive but it would be sad to see them used on one of our student pilots who makes a mistake. It will make for good TV and all the news stories will be quoted on these message boards. Then anyone who wants to do a search on aviation will find this stuff and think it's the whole story.

This whole reaction reminds me of a cat who chases a mouse under a doorway. The cat waits for hours for another mouse by the same doorway. There could be 20 more mice elsewhere in the barn but he won't see them.

I was at the airport the other day and, instead of the weather channel they were riveted to Fox News for hours. Sad.[/QUOTE]

You are correct Tom, it is sad.

Yes of course it's sad that people & pilots especially, aren't smart enough so that we wouldn't have masses of other people that feel the need for TFRs & ADIZs & Fighters & SAMs. And, when that continued lack of smartness culminates in any one of inumerable dangerous scenarios either involving GA or not then yes again, it will be even more sad.

But I know in spite of the actual reality, none of us with rational minds WANTS or would welcome any spectacular scenario involving GA or any other of thousands of POSSIBLE threats. Let's never forget, that the ongoning trouble caused for GA by the 911 fallout was not even by acts committed by GA but, the escalating troubles for us at this point HAVE been caused in significant part by GA.