F-18's force RV-6 to land

[DanH]

<<No cries for justice and very little in the way of requested change.>>

The most likely spin was "the pilot didn't file a flight plan". You know how the media loves that one.

Watch the news video for the TFR incident that started this thread. The talking head is totally ignorant of all things relating to aircraft and airspace. You can bet the Secret Service gave her an off-camera briefing, after which she would have been delighted if the authorities had shot the guy right there on the ramp. After all, he had "violated restricted airspace".

Not many media outlets picked up on this particular incident. Easy to see why when you consider this tidbit from a Pittsburgh outlet: ..."officials with the Secret Service confirmed it happened before Bush arrived in Latrobe." Bet the Asheboro news boob didn't know that.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Someone here was lambasting "stupid" Canadian air regulations here last week. I consider these TFRs in the US, inane. Am I reasonably safe from transgressing these by using flight following? Will ATC keep me clear of these if one pops up since I checked a few hours before the flight?

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I think you spelled that wrong. CHUCK the TFRs!

Agreed. Whether you like our current elected public servants or not, the current TFRs for POTUS and others are a serious PITA and don't add a lot in the way of safety. Those who want to so something bad will always find a way, and rules normally only restrict those who follow them (kinda a no-brainer, eh?). It's like the Ohio DOT (think it was them) who wanted to force aircraft owners to certify that they weren't terrorists. Now THAT will prevent someone from killing the masses with their 182.

I will be happy when P-49 goes away / changes shape in 2009.

 

[Jamie]

I guess the thing that pisses me off the most about the posted video is the reporter chasing the pilot and asking him repeatedly if he filed a flight plan -- like she has any freaking clue whatsoever what a flight plan really is or what it does for you -- and like she would even INVESTIGATE and REPORT this information.

 

[PaigeHoffart]

Best quote from the video

"Pilot Jim Chaney landed at Asheboro within minutes of the homebuilt Jet"

 

[WildBill]

"When people agree to live together, they must agree to give up some individual liberties."

Wow, when i see something like that I just cringe.

'My rights end where yours begin' is a much more accurate way to define the limits of individual liberties.

I hope the statement was meant in that way.

I hope all you TFR haters will stop watching, buying, supporting:
NFL,MLB, Disney, etc: "security" opportunists all.

 

[N941WR]

<<No cries for justice and very little in the way of requested change.>>

The most likely spin was "the pilot didn't file a flight plan". You know how the media loves that one.

Close. The guy was IFR and in the clouds so he was on a flight plan. He changed his routing in the air and not everyone got the word, including the F-4 driver.

 

[David-aviator]

Someone here was lambasting "stupid" Canadian air regulations here last week. I consider these TFRs in the US, inane. Am I reasonably safe from transgressing these by using flight following? Will ATC keep me clear of these if one pops up since I checked a few hours before the flight?

ATC will inform you of a TFR on your route IF they they are not too busy with IFR traffic. I have fallen through the cracks enough times with VFR flight following to be wary of it. The short answer is don't count on it.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Proper procedures

I'd go vertical, kick it over and if too close for missles I'd go to guns! (in my dreams)

Hope I or none of us ever miss a TFR and get a F-16 pull-over or have a Black Hawk land in front of us. I'm not an astronaut, so I don't wear diapers. It could be a mess.

I am not going to get high and mighty and criticise. (Yea I know you're surprised) I know it could happen to me or any one. It was not like he was flying over DC or something. Have you ever thought that the TFR tells everyone where the Pres is?

As far as not knowing intercept procedures? That is questionable. Even non-pilots know that from the movies. May be he was in denial. It is kind of funny when you think of it. Since he was out bound there was no reason to do anything.

 

[tin man]

Tin Man - Why are you and your type so quick to acquiesce to the federal government?? First, enough about how it's done in the rest of the world, please!! Flying indeed will be a privilege bestowed by the "more equal" to the "little people" as those such as yourself keep eagerly handing over their liberties.

The whole F-15, F-16, etc. intercepting GA planes is total BS! If there was indeed a threat, the Secret Svc should bring along 2-3 Phalanx guns or some stingers with Bush where he travels. A plane gets within 2 miles, just shoot it down!! If it's a threat, stop posturing and just do it.

And yes, I get inconvenienced by these useless TFRs 5-10 times a year.

I see you claim to be a CFII/MEI
IMHO probably not the best of attitudes to be bestowing on our future generation of g/a pilots.
Tom

 

[Low Pass]

I see you claim to be a CFII/MEI
IMHO probably not the best of attitudes to be bestowing on our future generation of g/a pilots.
Tom

What does my opinion about a rule/law have to do with how I may or may not teach that topic? I don't like a *lot* of what the government does, but I'm not stupid - I follow the law.

 

[rv8ch]

Flying in France

... I should feel "privileged" that my government has not yet illegally confiscated my rights, just because Frenchy surrendered his rights a long time ago? ...

BTW, France is one of the most GA friendly places to fly. My touch-n-go practice area is across the border in France, since there are no landing fees. Saves me about 10 USD per TNG. Vive la France!

 

[rv7boy]

A message from one of the moderators...

Gentlemen, Gentlemen...
Let's remember not to be personal in our remarks. Let's please keep it civil...and on topic.
Sincerely,
Don

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

I don't really want to wade into the politics of all of this -- there are lots of sites like that that I can avoid like the plague.

Regardless of whether we like these rules or we don't like these rules, it's time that we start following them until such a time that we can get them changed.

It's true that TFRs can pop-up on a moment's notice. This one wasn't one of them.

You'd have to be pretty ignorant, I think, NOT to have heard the warnings that AOPA and others have given us for YEARS -- 2001 was 6 years ago!!! -- about properly preparing for a flight.

Granted, the rules we're supposed to fly by are often ignored -- how else to explain inadvertent flight into IMC or fuel starvation -- except a pilot who didn't properly plan his flight.

The FAA could help us, Congress could help us, flight following could help us... but we could do a lot better job of helping us too.

We all took the private pilot exam. We studied for the questions (like, a pilot will familiar himself with all aspects of the planned flight) , we memorized the questions, we passed the test and then we ignored why they taught 'em to us in the first place.

 

[szicree]

Maybe I just didn't pay attention when my CFI covered it, but I will admit that I had no idea whatsoever what the proper intercept procedures were until I read them on this thread. I think if I was happily puttering along and some jet jock started shooting out flares I would probably contact ATC and ask what the heck it meant, but I would not have known to tune 121.5.

 

[CraigC]

Maybe I just didn't pay attention when my CFI covered it, but I will admit that I had no idea whatsoever what the proper intercept procedures were until I read them on this thread. I think if I was happily puttering along and some jet jock started shooting out flares I would probably contact ATC and ask what the heck it meant, but I would not have known to tune 121.5.

Before 9/11 intercept procedures were rarely if ever covered by your CFI or a checkride. Now it is important to know to keep a radio tuned to 121.5 if you have two. And the procedures for intercept are in the AIM.

 

[az_gila]

Hailing Frequency

Maybe I just didn't pay attention when my CFI covered it, but I will admit that I had no idea whatsoever what the proper intercept procedures were until I read them on this thread. I think if I was happily puttering along and some jet jock started shooting out flares I would probably contact ATC and ask what the heck it meant, but I would not have known to tune 121.5.

Steve... my instructor taught that 121.5 can be used for establishing communications...

He said it could be compared to the "Hailing Frequency" that was used in every episode of the TV series "Star Trek" .... perhaps that was because it was in the 70's....

... an easy way to remember if you like the series... and Lt. Uhura...

gil in Tucson

 

[Jamie]

Video

Here's a video of an A-10 practice intercept on a -8.

Click Here

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Need a BFR...

What does my opinion about a rule/law have to do with how I may or may not teach that topic? I don't like a *lot* of what the government does, but I'm not stupid - I follow the law.

Bryan,

I need to get a BFR done. Can I schedule with you?

REK

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

What I was trying to get across is that common sense needs to prevail in determining how to protect the country, our president and each other. Sending F-15s to intercept GA aircraft which are obviously not any possible threat to the president is just not sensible.

Never in my life -- and I consider myself a pretty smart guy -- did I think you could kill 3,000 people, knock down two of the tallest buildings on earth, ignite a worldwide recession, and cause two wars with a dozen 99 cent boxcutters.

I see your point, Ralph, but I think it's counterproductive for the GA community to fold its arms and say GA poses NO POSSIBLE THREAT to the president. Everything, in the wrong hands, poses a threat. Our stance should be that GA is willing to do its part to protect the nation's security, but that weakening GA weakens -- not strengthens -- that security.

Of course, I'd like of like it if the president would spend more time working than flying around the country, but that's a pretty unreasonable expectation, I guess.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Apologies if this has been posted before but the person who mentioned he didn't know about 121.5 reminded me that there's an AOPA Air Safety Foundation online course, "Know Before You Go," that's well worth taking.

Best of all, it qualifies for the Wings program, so you take it, print out the certificate, grab some time with a CFI and you've got your BFR.

I took it a few years ago. And again this morning.

 

[kentb]

That isn't what I expected.

Here's a video of an A-10 practice intercept on a -8.

Click Here

With the difference in speed, it looks more like a fly by. If this happened to me I would be thinking that I had stumbled into a MOA. I am sure that I would be tuning to 121.5 and asking for help how to get away from the jets as fast as possible.

Another point to ponder for those that are saying the TFR for GA are not needed. Although I don't think that a GA plane would make much of a dent in the white house and probably not hurt the limo much. When GA is restricted from the TFR it will make it easier for security to look for other threats.

Kent

 

[prporter]

Good morning Bob,

Please check E-mail and Pms. Thanks!

 

[Low Pass]

.......Another point to ponder for those that are saying the TFR for GA are not needed. Although I don't think that a GA plane would make much of a dent in the white house and probably not hurt the limo much. When GA is restricted from the TFR it will make it easier for security to look for other threats.

Kent

First, a plane already attempted to strike the White House some 20 years ago. I think it gouged a wall and broke some limbs. The pilot even violated prohibited airspace!

Second, in the case of the "travelling" TFRs, I seriously doubt that anything other than ATC radar is used. In this event, how are they going to track someone intent on causing harm if flying at 200-mph, 10-20' agl and the xpdr turned off?? And *IF* they could track a small plane under these conditions, how are they going to scramble a jet, or redirect a 150-kt helicopter to intercept, decide/request permission to fire upon and then fire upon a small plane in 6 minutes - the time it takes to fly 20 miles at 200 mph...

I still maintain TFRs are useless posturing against a determined person.

 

[WildThing]

POTUS TFR's

WOW. After having read 8 pages of this thread, I agree with almost everybody I've got 25 yrs as a Center controller, did SS "local knowledge expert" for GB1 once, have worked the CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over GB2, numerous DEA, DOD, USCG intercepts, hijacks, bomb threats, Guantanamo traffic out the ying-yang ..... I just want to say a few things - food for thought for everyone.

PIC - the driver is ultimately responsible. Period. If I tell you "Fly heading 180" it's up to you to comply - or not. But I don't issue control instructions just for the fun of it. VFR flight following, for better or worse, is not my top priority - keeping the IFR guys from scraping paint - is. I do more than most, because I'm "one of you", but I can't see (or respond) to everything

TFR's - I don't like 'em either - as a pilot or controller. BUT, there is NO reason to turn avgas (or JP) into perfectly good noise without getting a brief about them. Internet, 1-800-WX BRIEF, or on the radio - no excuses, just do it. The hassle/life you save WILL be your own. Since 9/11/2001, the sky is a much more "observed" place - for better or worse. We don't have a perfect system. The pro gun slingers have a job to do. Try not to be one of the targets.

Boys & girls - you're all a great bunch. I'm proud to be included. Remember: Push, Rudder, Roll - and then keep the blue side up!

I'm going back out to the garage now to level the fuselage jig for my -8A.....

Jeff "WildThing" Wirs
Miami ARTCC
N598WT (reserved)

PS - 121.5 is EVERYWHERE!!!

 

[Jamie]

PS - 121.5 is EVERYWHERE!!!

If you use 121.5 for something like this...who should you address?

"Hello...uhhhh...someone there???"

 

[xavierm]

the guy with the missiles

If you use 121.5 for something like this...who should you address?

"Hello...uhhhh...someone there???"

Address the guy flying next to you with the missiles.

The intercept procedures state "Attempt to communicate with ATC on 121.5, giving the identity and position of your aircraft and nature of the flight"

Also it says to squawk 7700 unless otherwise instructed by ATC.

 

[szicree]

Just out of curiosity, let's suppose another 9/11 style event occurs. An airliner full of passengers and a few hijackers is flying along and violates a TFR. They refuse to respond to attempted intercept. What now? We don't know what they're planning cuz they're not talking to anybody. Do they all get blasted to dust to protect the outer walls of the Whitehouse? What I mean is that such an action would guarantee the death of all on board, whereas not shooting would, in all likelihood, result in fewer lost lives. I guess I just don't see how the current system actually accomplishes anything at all.

 

[N98HK]

"Second, in the case of the "travelling" TFRs, I seriously doubt that anything other than ATC radar is used."

I've flown CAPs all over the country enforcing TFRs. It depends on how sensitive and defendable the potential target is. There are a lot of smart number crunchers out there, who think of every possible contingency, which is why some TFRs are 20 miles, and others I've seen out to 30 or 40. The ATC radar coverage plays into the decision to have airborne CAPs sanitizing the airspace or fighters on alert.
Last election year we were bouncing all over the country enforcing TFRs for POTUS and candidates...TFRs have no political affiliation - Rep or Dem! I only bring this up because we can expect to see more of the same in 08. Please check the TFRs.
On a different note, the footage of the A-10 is NOT the example of how you would be intercepted. First off, A-10s don't even fly these CAPs. They don't have radar, so are relatively useless for BVR air defense. They do have an awesome gun...and some AIM-9s. I would guess that this A-10 pilot knew the RV pilot and was shining his a$$...a great way to lose your wings. The pilot will not be doing aileron rolls, and he will be as close to co-airspeed as possible (not dusting you off). Once rejoined, he will get your attention with a wing rock. If he needs you to deviate course (most likey this is the case) he will pull slightly ahead of you, and turn to desired heading. As the intercepted pilot, (acknowledge with a wing rock and) turn to follow the fighter. Once on the desired heading, the fighter will most likely execute a 360 deg turn to rejoin or monitor you on the new course. (don't follow him through this turn - stay on the new heading) Once you have left the TFR or have established comm with ATC, the pilot will rejoin slighlty high, and peel off aggressively, clearing you off.
Flares will not be used initially, but will be authorized if the pilot is not responding to instruction.
As for what you can expect to hear on guard...it will be ATC or the pilot next to you saying something to the extent of "Aircraft NXXXX you have been intercepted for violation of restricted airspace. Turn immediately to a heading of XXX and contact ATC on XXX.XX." Just listening to guard should be enough to figure out your next course of action.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Appropriate actions are what we all want

I think we all agree here that what we all really want is for the government and the military to respond more appropriately to the situations. The way they have been responding is a bit idiotic.

1) We want the president, VIPs and candidates properly protected.

We expect that appropriate equipment and weapons are deployed to ensure the safety of all concerned.
​

2) We want real threats to be dealt with effectively.

We don't want another 9/11. The military needs to be able to stop any realistic threat approaching the object of the TFR - need to stop high speed low flying suicide bomb carrying aircraft - not just aircraft that are flying at normal cruising altitudes, normal speeds, using transponders and otherwise making it easy to be intercepted.
​

3) We want non-threats to be treated like non-threats.

If a plane was never on a direct intercept for the object of the TFR, cooperates with radio instructions and turns away from the object and leaves the TFR, then that really should be the end of the encounter. At most a direction to land and be identified by law enforcement is all that is required or a call to ATC. No need for sabre rattling, drawn guns or threats of license revocation.

If a plane has been intercepted, follows directions and lands, then there is no excuse for police to wrestle the unarmed occupants out of the aircraft at gunpoint, throw them on the ground and handcuff them. There is no excuse for threatening prolonged interviews with Secret Service agents. If you wouldn't arrest someone for clipping class B then neither should you be arresting people for making a unintended mistake in violating a TFR zone.
​

4) We want the FAA to take more reponsibility for making sure that GA pilots are clearly aware of where the TFRs are.

If a pilot calls up and asks about TFRs then the FAA needs to be careful to make sure the pilot knows about them. If the pilot is taking off from a towered airport nearby a TFR, then ATC needs to offer a reminder to the pilots of nearby TFRs. If a VFR pilot asks for flight following in the area of a TFR then it should be treated as required that ATC keep him clear of the TFR - none of this "workload permitting" bull****. Obviously ATC is watching the TFR area closely, so it really isn't that big of a deal to say, "Experimental 12345 TFR twelve o'clock ten miles ahead what are your intentions?"​

-- REK

 

[Jamie]

Address the guy flying next to you with the missiles.

The intercept procedures state "Attempt to communicate with ATC on 121.5, giving the identity and position of your aircraft and nature of the flight"

Also it says to squawk 7700 unless otherwise instructed by ATC.

Read my post again. I am *NOT* talking about intercept procedures. The controller said 121.5 is available everywhere, meaning presumably that if you can't reach ATC for whatever reason you can use 121.5 to establish communication. I was taught this very same thing and have seen it advised on several training films. My question is -- how would you establish communications in this situation.

I know the intercept procedures.

 

[airguy]

What I mean is that such an action would guarantee the death of all on board, whereas not shooting would, in all likelihood, result in fewer lost lives. I guess I just don't see how the current system actually accomplishes anything at all.

Huh???

Were you paying attention at all to the relative body counts on 9/11??

Yes, you shoot them down. You cannot run the risk of losing countless thousands on the ground due to a well-aimed flying fuel tank, even if a few hundred souls are riding that fuel tank. My personal opinion is that the terrorists know that as well - and I think we have likely seen our last attempt to commandeer a commercial jetliner because they know that our reaction will be to shoot it down immediately before it can impact a high-value target. Once the aircraft has been commandeered, both the aircraft itself and all those aboard it are already lost - all you can do at that point is go into damage control mode. Our own flying public demonstrated that by successfully interupting the mission of the fourth aircraft. They knew from cellphone communication that they were now on a one-way mission and forced an early end to it. Don't think that our military contingency planners were not paying attention.

 

[groucho]

Wow, what a can of worms.

Alright, here's some mutual support Dave. I'm another guy who's been flying fighters over our soil on & off since about 9am on Sep 11, 2001. I had AIM-9's, AIM-7's, AIM-120's & 940 rounds of 20mm then & many days since to say that no one would make a repeat performance. Not on my watch; not on Dave's; not on anyone's. Here are my 2 cents.

A guy with a suitcase might be a threat. If you think a GA plane couldn't be a threat, think again.

TFRs suck. Some of them are no biggie & some of them are a real pain. Here's the deal though, if a TFR is issued, you are responsible for knowing about it & living by the restrictions. As a civilian pilot, TFRs have gotten in my way on more than one occasion. Do I like 'em? No. Do I follow the rules? Yes. You should too.

Intercepts. Honestly, I was not stressed the importance of this when I got my private. That, however, was a while before 9/11. Everyone in this discussion has now seen the AIM reference for intercepts. My advise is to review them. If you know them, great. If you don't know them, start reading. If you have questions, ask someone who knows (I know of at least 2 people here...). It's part of your responsibilities as a pilot. No different than getting a BFR, medical, or the conditional inspection on your plane.

The odds of a military pilot "showing off" his plane to you are pretty much zero. If you see someone flying either beside you or passing you while rocking wings or dropping flares, it's not a social visit. He means business - now.

It's not the job of the fighter pilot to set policy, decide where the TFRs are, or how/if they will be enforced. If you want things changed, we're not the avenues for that. Write petitions, letters to your Congressman, call EAA or AOPA, whatever. I'm not saying I won't listen, but there's nothing I can do about it. There are ways to make change happen. I'm not saying it wouldn't be an uphill battle though...

Flight plans. Yup, reporters are dumb. I rather enjoy the fact that I don't have to file a flight plan when I'm flying my RV.

Overkill. Agreed, an F-15/16/18/etc is definitely more than adequate to take down anything in the sky. However, you can't very well run down anything in most other planes. Nor could you do anything to stop something bad from happening. Sorry, but it takes a fighter to do a fighter's job.

If a fighter pilot did actually have to shoot down a civilian anything, (no offense, but) you can't possibly imagine the mental side of that unless you're one of them. No fighter pilot wants to shoot down a civilian anything. However, don't think for a second that they won't if they need to.

Big picture: Check the TFRs. Don't fly where you aren't supposed to or I might have to shoot you down. That would suck for all of us.

 

[groucho]

Read my post again. I am *NOT* talking about intercept procedures. The controller said 121.5 is available everywhere, meaning presumably that if you can't reach ATC for whatever reason you can use 121.5 to establish communication. I was taught this very same thing and have seen it advised on several training films. My question is -- how would you establish communications in this situation.
.

Jamie-

You may or may not be able to actually contact the jets intercepting you. If you get in touch with controller for that sector, they can tell you what's going on. 121.5 will get you in touch with every controller there is in the US. A call like this would work: "Any controller, this is N12345 on guard. I'm being intercepted by 2 fighters at this location. Please advise."

 

[Jamie]

This thread has pretty much convinced me of the value of a Garmin 396/496 -- especially since the 08 campaign season is starting to kick off, FSS is inept and ATC is pretty much useless for keeping us out of TFRs while VFR.

The President and both major parties' nominees will all have TFRs and they will all be doing non-stop campaigning across the country (yes, three different TFRs). It's not uncommon for one politician to visit 4 or 5 stops in one day. I live in a state that pretty much always votes one way in federal elections so the campaigners ignore us. If you live in a state that votes in the middle I would be extra diligent.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

A threat?

Here are my 2 cents.

A guy with a suitcase might be a threat. If you think a GA plane couldn't be a threat, think again.

As I have been writing, an appropriate response to threats is needed and the attitude you express here concerns me.

Could a GA plane be a threat? Perhaps. But should all GA aircraft on the radar screen be accosted by fighters forced to the ground and treated as terrorists upon landing? Probably not.

If you see a C-150 bumbling along in the sky at 95 knots 5500 feet sqwauking 1200 approaching the TFR zone 30 miles from the President and on a present course that will only graze the TFR by a mile or so, that really is not a threat and should never have been treated as one.

If you see a C-150 skimming at treetop level no transponder, moving directly towards the President, then that's different.

Yes, I recognize that you in the fighter are not the policymaker. My comments are not directed at you. They are directed at your superiors and other government officials who are policymakers. As a citizen, I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect the government to enact policies that make good common sense.

--REK

 

[groucho]

Could a GA plane be a threat? Perhaps. But should all GA aircraft on the radar screen be accosted by fighters forced to the ground and treated as terrorists upon landing? Probably not.

I agree 100%. Thankfully for all of us, the vast majority of all air traffic is left alone.

If you see a C-150 bumbling along in the sky at 95 knots 5500 feet sqwauking 1200 approaching the TFR zone 30 miles from the President and on a present course that will only graze the TFR by a mile or so, that really is not a threat and should never have been treated as one.

If you see a C-150 skimming at treetop level no transponder, moving directly towards the President, then that's different.

They are very different indeed. The response may be quite different to the two examples here. However, that response depends on way more things than just their flight path. Either plane could possibly be carrying chems or a bomb though. Chances are, the pilot of the plane skimming the TFR border is just screwing up. Chances of the other pilot being a threat are much higher...but he could be just screwing up too. Tough to tell, hence the intercept to find out.

As a citizen, I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect the government to enact policies that make good common sense.

Agree. I say lets all work towards that.

 

[patterson]

Now THAT was funny

" Hope I or none of us ever miss a TFR and get a F-16 pull-over or have a Black Hawk land in front of us. I'm not an astronaut, so I don't wear diapers. It could be a mess.... George/GMC "

George! I Nearly laughed myself out of my chair when I read your post on this subject. Never knew you had such a great sense of humor. thank-you for the levity. Sometimes, I think, we all take ourselves too seriously.

Ron
N8ZD

 

[szicree]

Huh???

Were you paying attention at all to the relative body counts on 9/11??

Of course I was, but in truth the loss of life at the WTC was mostly caused by the building coming down long after the crash. Also, the folks in the second tower were actually instructed to stay put even while the first building was burning. I suspect that such a situation would be handled quite differently now. I was thinking more along the lines of the Pentagon attack. I assume such buildings have pretty robust outer walls and would limit loss of life inside. I guess I'm just figuring that killing a couple hundred taxpayers in the air, then having all that flaming debris rain down on a city would not be so great either. I do not claim to have a solution.

 

[airguy]

Of course I was, but in truth the loss of life at the WTC was mostly caused by the building coming down long after the crash. Also, the folks in the second tower were actually instructed to stay put even while the first building was burning. I suspect that such a situation would be handled quite differently now. I was thinking more along the lines of the Pentagon attack. I assume such buildings have pretty robust outer walls and would limit loss of life inside. I guess I'm just figuring that killing a couple hundred taxpayers in the air, then having all that flaming debris rain down on a city would not be so great either. I do not claim to have a solution.

There's no easy answer - whichever way you go, you're gonna catch some flak. I don't believe terrorists are likely to use an aircraft to kill an official of state, they know that we have backup personnel for our backup personnel - but they can use that same airplane to create a large amount of damage, both financially and physically, as we saw on 9/11. At the risk of being called callous and hard-hearted, I say yes - you shoot it down. If I was on board that aircraft when I was hijacked, I would know and be at peace with the fact that I'm done for, whether it's by my own hand fighting them in the airplane or at the pointy end of a Sidewinder missile.

 

[WildThing]

ATC and 121.5

... and ATC is pretty much useless for keeping us out of TFRs while VFR.

Ouch! I would venture that flight following is at least 99% effective for keeping you out of a TFR (and someone else's windshield) - nothing is perfect though... not the System, you, me, TCAS, the other pilots, etc. But if you need an excuse to go buy a new GPS/XM/LMNOP gizmochy for your bird - go for it! We all love new "required" toys

As for using 121.5 - there are ground sites sprinkled all over the place. The other great thing about "Navy common", is that most people monitor 121.5 on their 2nd radio - some are even REQUIRED to monitor (reminder, reminder) - while airborne. Verbiage? As with most things, the KISS method works best. ATC has 121.5 in "the speaker" whereas we talk to our planes using our headsets. So... you want to get our attention, and then spit out the short, concise issue. "PAN PAN PAN (.5-1 second pause) N598WT is two zero miles north of S.O.L. VORTAC and has an F-16 off my right side. Request assistance". Other than everyone else being jealous of your Kodak moment, you will get a reply from SOMEBODY - hopefully the other aircraft that heard it will listen for a moment for ATC to chime in before they try to assist - but sometimes you will be located too far/too low for ATC to hear you directly, and one of the heavy metal drivers will relay for you (right guy's)? So, ID who you are, where you are, and the problem - but SHORT-n-SWEET - no long, drawn out disertation like this reply

WT

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Ouch! I would venture that flight following is at least 99% effective for keeping you out of a TFR (and someone else's windshield)
. . .
WT

Fine, you (ATC) want to help keep us out of TFRs? I'm all for it. When a TFR is active in an area (let's say, within, say 75 miles of the TFR's center) then all ATC must provide (not "workload permitting") flight following for all VFR traffic requesting it. That would be a huge improvement right there. If then an airplane actually does stray into the TFR he really had to have worked at it. If it gets lost on the controller's list of things to do, then at least it is squawking a code and ATC can figure out who it is when the fighters ask about it.

--REK

 

[WildThing]

Security - some (hopefully) un-classified background

If you see a C-150 bumbling along in the sky at 95 knots 5500 feet sqwauking 1200 approaching the TFR zone 30 miles from the President and on a present course that will only graze the TFR by a mile or so, that really is not a threat and should never have been treated as one. --REK

Well... one of my favorite quotes "Perspective is everything". The above example assumes that the 150 and it's driver is just J.J. Boob, our somewhat oops oriented pilot. IF I were a bad guy, intent on crashing my C150 into POTUS - I wouldn't want to broadcast that intent, would I? NO. And a 150, or any other GA bird IS a lot of kinetic/potential energy - especially if full of gas (fuel was THE WTC issue) or a few hundred pounds of (pick your favorite explosive). Look at it from our side of the picture, as the CAP ATC controllers, the SD-W (senior director-weapons, NORAD), the Eagle driver(s), the SS guys, and a (big) handful of other security types - when we get "assigned" to cover POTUS (or any other hi value target), we can't afford to assume SQUAT! Subterfuge, distraction and hiding in plain sight are trademark methods of getting in close to your target. Factor in reaction time - and BINGO - bad day for everyone. We HAVE to keep a large buffer around the principle - because NOBODY wants to shoot anybody down. By the time the fudge factor expires (large flashing signs, dropping flares, rocking wings, helicopters with no missles, etc) JJ has gotten a bit closer, maybe too close. Yes, we have back-ups and other assets that are available, but we can never assume that the little 150 is not a threat.

Take a breath now. Relax. Good

As to the heavy hand of the "troops" (guns drawn, hand cuffs, rotor wash accidents, etc) I agree that the "State" should treat it citizens with as much respect and dignity as possible. But that's a tough one sometimes. I was on a Federal Grand Jury once, and in general, I didn't like the way that the cops were "restraining" and apprehending some of the people. It's a tough call - that "perspective" thing again - plus the fact that in the 29 cases that we sat.... almost no 2 witnesses ever told the same story

WT

 

[airguy]

Fine, you (ATC) want to help keep us out of TFRs? I'm all for it. When a TFR is active in an area (let's say, within, say 75 miles of the TFR's center) then all ATC must provide (not "workload permitting") flight following for all VFR traffic requesting it. That would be a huge improvement right there. If then an airplane actually does stray into the TFR he really had to have worked at it. If it gets lost on the controller's list of things to do, then at least it is squawking a code and ATC can figure out who it is when the fighters ask about it.

--REK

You know that's not going to happen. Too much workload, not enough controllers. So hire more controllers, right? Sure - and then watch the FAA hit you with per-use fees to pay them. Hit me with a per-use fee, and see if I use the service. Where's the safety now?

 

[WildThing]

Fine, you (ATC) want to help keep us out of TFRs? I'm all for it. When a TFR is active in an area (let's say, within, say 75 miles of the TFR's center) then all ATC must provide (not "workload permitting") flight following for all VFR traffic requesting it. That would be a huge improvement right there. If then an airplane actually does stray into the TFR he really had to have worked at it. If it gets lost on the controller's list of things to do, then at least it is squawking a code and ATC can figure out who it is when the fighters ask about it. --REK

Hey Ralph,

I'm on your side, really. I just know more about the limitations of the system than you've had the opportunity to learn or be exposed to. You have a good idea about everyone at least being on a discrete code - but read my post about "Security - backround". The SINGLE biggest problem with your suggestion (above) is that controllers are human - and thus have a threshold of how many things they can do and keep track of. It's all a time/quantity workload thing. In todays system, if VFR's were required to be worked by the controller - they would generally be kept farther away from the TFR. The system is just not dynamic enough to let everyone fly when/where they want. I wish it were - it would make my life easier, and flying in general, safer. TFR's are a big workload under ideal, light-moderate traffic situations. You can imagine what a normally busy sector is going to be like when they ALSO have to deal with a TFR. Trust me... not fun.

Yes, we do have slow periods (thank God). I'm sure that everyone out there - flying along and listening to their radio - not hearing ATC very much - and it seems like we never answer your calls. "What's up with that", you say? Well, we "single pilot" our sectors a lot these days (not during TFR's). That adds to our "distraction" workload - having to do more of our other required (off the air) coordination, etc. I'm not making excuses - just sharing some of the "behind the scenes" things that aren't always apparent.

I almost forgot - not all intercepted aircraft are met by the LE types or the FSDO guy. They do realize that J.J. Boob is out there enjoying the scenery. The media just makes it seem like every poor sap gets the proverbial 3rd degree.

WT

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Yup, reporters are dumb.

Well, you had me word for word right up until here. Reporters are often misinformed which is the reason they ask questions. The opportunity is in the answer to set them right. So when someone puts a hand in a camera lense (which, by the way, is about the stupidest thing you can do, unless you don't mind several people deciding at once that you must be guilty of something and this is, after all, a PR battle), that's a missed opportunity.

I've discussed many times on this board the need for pilots , before the fact, to get the media on their side and put GA in a positive light.

It saddens me to see people dismiss, well, people like me, as being "dumb" because of what I do for a living. I don't think I'm dumb. I actually think I'm pretty smart. But I don't think I can't learn something which is why I ask questions.

The problem in this case is that absent anything else, the producer of the piece thought he/she/it had no choice but to go with the video the cameraman shot, the reporter asking questions, and, yeah, that's a pretty ugly process.

I don't blame the guy for not talking, I don't blame the reporter for asking a "dumb" question (what we might consider a technical question, they might be asking -- ungracefully -- whether the pilot knew what he was straying into and whether he had been given permission to do so... or thought he had permission to do so).

We think it's a dumb question because already know the answer.

Look, I want the same things you folks do. OTOH, until we got off our "we're smart, you're dumb" kick w.r.t. reporters and the media, more airports are going to close, more restrictions are going to placed on G.A. and more pilots are going to wake up in the morning wondering "what happened?"

I've been in the news business for 30 years and I'm really good at it. I've met some really great pilots. I've met a few stupid ones. I don't think that means "pilots are stupid."

W.R.T. to working with reporters, if you like how it's going for G.A. right now, by all means, do nothing in the way of re-examining our own attitudes.

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

though. Chances are, the pilot of the plane skimming the TFR border is just screwing up. Chances of the other pilot being a threat are much higher...but he could be just screwing up too. Tough to tell, hence the intercept to find out.Agree. I say lets all work towards that.

Yeah, the goal of the terrorist is to fit into the general population until they strike. If planes who violate a TFR are at a particular altitude and we say, "oh, well, they're straight and level at 5,000', forget about 'em," if I'm a terrorist, I'm going to fly straight and level at 5,000'.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Hey Ralph,

I'm on your side, really. . . . The SINGLE biggest problem with your suggestion (above) is that controllers are human - and thus have a threshold of how many things they can do and keep track of. It's all a time/quantity workload thing.
. . .

WT

I just want the system to work right for everyone.

I would say that the FAA needs to increase the number of controllers. Running you guys ragged with too much work isn't helping anyone.

Of course then I once worked for the Bureau of Prisons back in the 80's. On our first day on the job they advised us against joining the union. "Remember PATCO" the HR lady said.

--REK

 

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

First, a plane already attempted to strike the White House some 20 years ago. I think it gouged a wall and broke some limbs. The pilot even violated prohibited airspace!

The Doolittle raid caused relatively little damage on Tokyo, and yet it was a critical moment in the war. The goal of terrorism is not necessarily to inflict the most amount of damage, it is to cause terror, or undermine faith in something.

If a small plane were to crash into the White House, the meaning of it isn't rendered moot -- or not even rendered less -- by the amount of damage it caused.

The White House is a symbol. The president is a symbol. The World Trade Center was a symbol. Just the mere act of attacking it undermines everything the symbol stands for.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

But really...

...but really, given the way the Secret Service arrests people who have on anti-Bush T-shirts when they show up at rallies, I think the real reason why we have TFRs around the President is to prevent people from flying overhead towing banners that read "Bush ****s".

...BTW, I spent $1000 helping get him re-elected. Sorry about that everyone...

--REK