Lindberg
Final Approach
Maybe, but so what? "Splash one Citrus!" There's not the remotest chance. If you think those Eagles are flying around weapons free, you're crazy.
Super Bowl Security to Shoot Down Drones within 32 miles of stadium
- Thread starter PPC1052
- Start date
Maybe, but so what? "Splash one Citrus!" There's not the remotest chance. If you think those Eagles are flying around weapons free, you're crazy.
Lindberg
Final Approach
People are remarkably bad at judging risk. But it seems only liberals double down when they're proven wrong. What you predict above is exactly what's been predicted to happen everywhere people are "allowed" to carry guns. It's happened nowhere, but the same folks Kerry making the same predictions....
The security you see is all theater. The real security is invisible.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Only liberals?
Definitely not. Most people are awful at it. Why do you think all the theater and social engineering works in the first place?
The numbers have been consistent for a long time. You're probably going to die of heart disease, cancer, or maybe an MVA.
Doesn't matter what political persuasion toward which fake "competing" political party bent you have, there's no difference in the Parties when it comes to spending stupid amounts of time and money on fake security measures.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
So, are you saying there is no such thing as security?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Depends. What flavor of feel-good would you like? I have friends who sell various services. None of them have a money back guarantee.
Most are in the information "security" biz but one is in personal life-safety protection and another is in facilities/physical objects protection. They're all really good at what they do. In fact all lead teams doing it as catch the newbie's mistakes too, besides their own.
Only the life-safety guy has a perfect track record. He retired before anything really bad happened, in his words, not mine. He was also quite concerned about liability if he had to hurt a bad guy to protect a primary or their family, since he was private sector and didn't enjoy government immunity. He only worked for people with very deep pockets who'd pay for the best possible defense for him.
So to be blunt. No. Security is whatever makes you feel good.
Slipping and falling in your bathroom kills way more people than most of the boogeyman scenarios that worry people. They don't install non-slip floors and non-slip tubs so they take "unnecessary" chances with a significant killer.
Look it up under causes of death at CDC if you don't believe it. Millions and millions accept a severe "lack of security" in their bathrooms every day.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
I don't currently have time to respond to everything, but one quick question...
Do you leave your house unlocked at night, or when you leave for the day?
How about your car? You go to downtown Denver, and do you leave it unlocked?
Lindberg
Final Approach
There may be an adverse selection problem. In matters of policy, they're usually the ones being proven wrong, so they have more opportunities.Only liberals?
denverpilot
Tied Down
I have done both, yes.
Locking doors is a habit that doesn't really provide any real security. It slows down the incredibly dumb or high for about three minutes, or someone hoping for an easy entrance without breaking anything.
I've had two car break-ins so far and the locks accomplished nothing. Are you suggesting the cars were "secure" by locking the doors? That's hilarious.
You do know they have windows, right?
That's been the "attack vector" for both car break-ins.
Break in number one the bums wanted my pocket change and smokes.
Break in number two they wanted the stereo that was $75 brand new. Probably a drug addict who thought they could sell it for a hit of their chosen stupidity.
One was in broad daylight in downtown Denver, the other at night in suburbia.
The house, I can show you how easy it usually is to get into anyone's house, and it doesn't even require breaking anything on the house and probably 50% or more of the people reading this are susceptible to it, but I won't bother putting it in a public forum.
Plus most houses have ground floor windows and nothing barring them. A rock is your key.
60 seconds with a slide hammer will rip the handle right off of most house doors, too. Isn't even very loud. Dress like a contractor and rent a van if you want some minor protection from nosey neighbors.
That friend who does physical "stuff" security can provide you with some good solutions for the house and to a lesser extent, the car, if you like.
It's all about what makes you feel good.
There's nine entrances to my house that wouldn't require opening a door, and that's if you didn't show up with a ladder. I bet yours is the same.
If locking the door makes you feel good, by all means, go for it. I doubt your house is actually secured by it. Most aren't.
If you spent the money and time and made things difficult for someone, via hardening various things, great. I'm pretty sure there's still a way in if someone cased the joint and thought about it for a whopping minute or two.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Make them secure? No. Add one rudimentary level of security? Absolutely.
I have seen first hand people passing over locked cars (for interior content) opting to find an unlocked car.
There may be an adverse selection problem. In matters of policy, they're usually the ones being proven wrong, so they have more opportunities.
One of my college buddies pointed out that we humans are subject to a phenomenon that he called "selective perception."
Nowadays, I guess the "in" term for that is "confirmation bias."
denverpilot
Tied Down
That's not really security. That's speed and quietness of access, when talking about a vehicle. It's a guarantee anyone can get into any standard car. The question is, how noticeable do they want to be when doing it.
Someone with nothing to lose and the only penalty being getting taken to a warm jail cell with food and a cot, versus busting car windows looking for change, living on the street, is going to bust the windows.
This is the same problem with the "security" around these large scale events. Anyone with nothing to lose will always beat any "security" they toss at it. The game is in making them think they have something to lose.
The threat with the TFR and the Eagles is that you'll lose your life before you can get there. Highly unlikely though, in reality. Maybe a 50/50 shot someone will pull the trigger switch and rain aluminum over a populated area. If even that high.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Are you saying you think the Air Force is going to shoot down a small civilian airplane over San Francisco that just wanders into the TFR during the Superbowl?
Do you think they'll use missiles or guns?
Are you saying you think the Air Force is going to shoot down a small civilian airplane over San Francisco that just wanders into the TFR during the Superbowl?
Do you think they'll use missiles or guns?
FYI, San Francisco is well outside the manned aircraft no-fly zone.
Last edited:
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm no expert, but I think a fighter would have one hell of a time trying to shoot down the "average" drone. How the hell are they even supposed to find the thing?
No way in hell they're going to be able to hit it with guns.
No way in hell they're going to get a "lock" on it and release a radar missile. Heat missile sure isn't going to work.
Just a bunch of security theatre.
No way in hell they're going to be able to hit it with guns.
No way in hell they're going to get a "lock" on it and release a radar missile. Heat missile sure isn't going to work.
Just a bunch of security theatre.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Are you saying you think the Air Force is going to shoot down a small civilian airplane over San Francisco that just wanders into the TFR during the Superbowl?
Do you think they'll use missiles or guns?
Shucks... Please show me where I implied that, and perhaps I can clarify.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
That is indeed security. Security is not, and likely never will be perfect. That said, making it as hard as possible for the bad guys too succeed is a good thing. On a small level, locking your doors accomplishes that first layer.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
I think a fighter shooting at drones was dispelled earlier in this thread.
That said, are you of the belief that security is all just theatre? Are you in the camp of zero security?
And 100% probability that they will hit the ground. The potential for some really ugly publicity due to collateral damage is very high....
-Skip
I think the usual role of jet fighters in a TFR like this is to intercept errant manned aircraft and escort them to a landing for whatever enforcement action is deemed appropriate. I don't think they have any reasonable role when consumer-sized drones are involved. For those, I'm not sure the feds have any practical means of enforcement for most of the 3000 or 4000 square miles of the TFR.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Your abuse of the Socratic method as a conversational technique doors make it difficult to nail you down, but you've certainly implied the TFR and CAP make Superbowl attendance safer. How do you think it does that?
Lindberg
Final Approach
When reading my posts, feel free to substitute [the place where San Francisco's football team plays] for San Francisco.:wink2:
Lindberg
Final Approach
I agree with your friend. I suggest you Google "unintended consequence obamacare" and then compare the results to the opponent's predictions as a little experiment.One of my college buddies pointed out that we humans are subject to a phenomenon that he called "selective perception."
Nowadays, I guess the "in" term for that is "confirmation bias."
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
A friend just witnessed a Piper Cub get intercepted by a F15. I would have loved to see that live.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Where?
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Abuse? Whatever.. I never implied shooting down civilian GA planes..
Yes, overall I do believe security has an impact. It's not perfect, and things can still go awry. That said, zero security would mean we let a know Isis guy in carrying a flame thrower. Obviously that's over the top, but where do you draw the line?
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
He didn't say the exact location but he and another friend watched it as it went down. They are both CFI's
Lindberg
Final Approach
Yes, abuse. That is what it is when someone comments that a particular suggested security measure is security, and you respond with something like, "[A]re you of the belief that security is all just theatre? Are you in the camp of zero security?" It's trollish, and you've done it several times.
I think the relevant question is where do you draw the line? This thread is about a particular very costly security measure. Costly in terms of $$$$ and costly in terms of the impact on involved people and resources. You think it's a good idea. So why don't you explain why you think that? Quit the false dichotomy stuff and explain why you think this particular measure is a great idea.
That's a good demonstration of selective perception. One program fostered by one side of the political spectrum tells us nothing about whether the other side of the political spectrum is better, worse, or about the same.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Ahhh.... Someone disagrees with you, makes a good point in their own defense, and your response is its trollish. If that's all you've got....
SF Bay Area?
The questions don't prove anything, so why not just answer "no" to both of them?
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
To answer your question, yes, I do believe security works. It's not perfect, but the harder we can make it for the bad guys the better.
I realize this thread is about Super Bowl security, but really the elephant in the room is aviation security. There is nothing I can say about the TSA that will please you, but I do believe they make a huge difference. Deterrence. I just can't imagine getting on an airliner with zero security. Letting everyone on, armed, knives, bazookas... And while we're at it lets just leave the cockpit door open.
So, where do I draw the line?? I'm not sure. I'll know it when we get there. I don't think we are there yet.
Luvrv8
Line Up and Wait
Somewhere in the TFR. They are in the game, can't get details
I'm sure it will be on the news sooner or later.
I got to listen to the Blue Angels' radio traffic while they were waiting for the appointed time to do their flyby of the stadium. Afterwards they flew over my neighborhood a couple of times before landing. It was interesting to hear the leader calling his throttle changes, which now that I think of it, would obviously be needed to give his wing men a heads up.
Last edited:
flyingriki
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 910
- Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
You got that frequency exactly how ?
I wanted to know when to go outside to watch for them, so I was Googling for their schedule and ran across this Web site:
http://forums.radioreference.com/sa.../327718-nfl-superbowl-50-a-2.html#post2527555
Acrodustertoo
Ejection Handle Pulled
We got to talking and we all have the same question right now. How hard or easy is it to shoot a piper cub out the sky with an f-15? We all saw the video of the Eagles trying to keep pace with a Cessna, now cut that speed down by thirty five knots or so and now how effective are the cannons on the eagle to a target at that speed and how effective would any of our current ordnance be at that speed and target size?