Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
F-18's force RV-6 to land
- Thread starter N941WR
- Start date
Ralph Kramden
Active Member
WildThing said:
IF the 150 is still more than 25 miles away and IF it is clearly known that it IS a 150 then it doesn't really matter if it is loaded with explosives or chemicals. It just cannot physically get within five miles of the president wihtout its true intent becoming obvious. Then, all our intrepid F-15 aces need to do is one quick flyby with afterburners on and shake it out of the sky with their jet wake.
Consider how difficult it would be to actually use a 150 or for that matter any GA aircraft (even an RV) as a suicide weapon. It can't dive on the target - the wings would come off and it would lose the ability to manuever as it went past Vne. That would leave only a low altitude approach which pretty well tells everyone that it was up to no good. And the chances of successfully evading the fighters and Secret Service firing their weapons (and I have to believe they have Stingers with them) while trying to spot the target and manuever for it are very very low. Could a GA airplane be a threat? Yes, but only if they took no steps whatsoever to defend against it. But they do take those steps, so it isn't an issue. So why are we all getting bent out of shape over an aircraft that cannot be a practical threat because of it's distance, altitude and speed limitations?
What about dropping a bomb or chemicals? Well, again it probably is going to get looked at by fighters if it proceeds inside the TFR at 30 miles and the bomb hanging off a hard point on a 310 would be a really obvious indication to the fighter pilots that this wasn't a non-threat. Or the Ag plane flying inbound towards a city where the President is at would be pretty obviously suspicious too.
Once a GA aircraft is identified as a GA aircraft and is seen to be cooperating with ATC, there really is just about no chance that it could threaten the President. You want to put a TFR around the President? Fine. But let's please be realistic about why we would need a TFR around the President.
--REK
frankh
Well Known Member
Say
Wasn't there a misguided soul that flew a C172 into a high rise building in an attempt to emulate his 9-11 bretherin?
At least thats the story.
I think it cracked the plate glass on the building or something absurdly minor...Of curse if it was packed with C12 it would have made a hole I guess.
Of course now we have a NASA executive in his spare time making Bomb racks for his RV...I dunno sounds suspicious to me...
Frank
Wasn't there a misguided soul that flew a C172 into a high rise building in an attempt to emulate his 9-11 bretherin?
At least thats the story.
I think it cracked the plate glass on the building or something absurdly minor...Of curse if it was packed with C12 it would have made a hole I guess.
Of course now we have a NASA executive in his spare time making Bomb racks for his RV...I dunno sounds suspicious to me...
Frank
cytoxin
Well Known Member
frankh said:Wasn't there a misguided soul that flew a C172 into a high rise building in an attempt to emulate his 9-11 bretherin?
At least thats the story.
I think it cracked the plate glass on the building or something absurdly minor...Of curse if it was packed with C12 it would have made a hole I guess.
Of course now we have a NASA executive in his spare time making Bomb racks for his RV...I dunno sounds suspicious to me...
Frank
now now,it's only a bomb rack if you put a bomb on it.
frankh
Well Known Member
yes but
It would make a great story of mistaken intent and awkward questioning by humourless "agent Smith" types where someone in Homeland security does a web search on "home made bomb rack", "experimental airplane" and "rocket fuel"....
At least it would be funny afterwards...
Frank
It would make a great story of mistaken intent and awkward questioning by humourless "agent Smith" types where someone in Homeland security does a web search on "home made bomb rack", "experimental airplane" and "rocket fuel"....
At least it would be funny afterwards...
Frank
Ralph Kramden
Active Member
I keep wondering about...
So our Pilot Boob transgresses against the TFR of the day and is then directed to land and meet with law enforcement. Secret Service shows up. Boob then chooses to invoke his right against self-incrimination and refuses to answer questions of the Secret Service. What happens then? By FAA reg he does have to show his license to law enforcement but I don't believe that he has an obligation to answer many other questions... any lawyers out there?
just wondering...
--REK
frankh said:It would make a great story of mistaken intent and awkward questioning by humourless "agent Smith" types where someone in Homeland security does a web search on "home made bomb rack", "experimental airplane" and "rocket fuel"....
At least it would be funny afterwards...
Frank
So our Pilot Boob transgresses against the TFR of the day and is then directed to land and meet with law enforcement. Secret Service shows up. Boob then chooses to invoke his right against self-incrimination and refuses to answer questions of the Secret Service. What happens then? By FAA reg he does have to show his license to law enforcement but I don't believe that he has an obligation to answer many other questions... any lawyers out there?
just wondering...
--REK
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
I'm not a lawyer, but...Ralph Kramden said:
Pilot Boob will have failed what is kindly referred to in LE as the "attitude test". At which point what may have been a couple hour hassle with the MIB - will become a long drawn out affair at the end of which I would guarantee some sort of charges would be filed just 'cause you pixxed them off.
tonyjohnson
Well Known Member
remain silent ??
Pilot boob may indeed stand on his constitutional right to remain silent....thereby passing up the opportunity to satisfy the USSS that he is not a threat.
If boob has violated any law that could get him locked up.....my guess is that out will come the handcuffs. If he had nothing to hide and was cooperative, he could have perhaps avoided that.
You can invoke your rights at any time, including specific questions. If asked to admit a violation of the law, that would be a good time to politely decline to answer.
If you are "read your rights" that would also be an indication that it is time to stop talking.
This is a very complex issue that is fact specific and there is no one answer that is right for every situation.
Pilot boob may indeed stand on his constitutional right to remain silent....thereby passing up the opportunity to satisfy the USSS that he is not a threat.
If boob has violated any law that could get him locked up.....my guess is that out will come the handcuffs. If he had nothing to hide and was cooperative, he could have perhaps avoided that.
You can invoke your rights at any time, including specific questions. If asked to admit a violation of the law, that would be a good time to politely decline to answer.
If you are "read your rights" that would also be an indication that it is time to stop talking.
This is a very complex issue that is fact specific and there is no one answer that is right for every situation.
Last edited:
Ralph Kramden
Active Member
tonyjohnson said:
Wouldn't pretty much any conversation a pilot would have with the USSS begin with being reminded of their Miranda rights?
???
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Really
All pilots should be treated equally, questioned the same. It's the answers and behavior which are the "tell" to a trained interrogator; we can't totally dismiss context?
The reality is the "enemy" emanates from the middle east. The enemy justifies their actions on the moral authority of the "Qur'an", ie islam/muslim. If it's true, it's not bigotry. The bigotry comes from assuming all arabs and muslims are terrorist. I don't think that is in play.
It's normal for good people to have a hard time believing the worst of other people. You just don't want to believe it, so we compensate by over accommodating to a group. Our own morality and goodness used against us if you will.
Debate from all points of view, thoughtfulness and constant watch is needed to strike the balance and maintain the good. Civil discourse is good and powerful. That is why America is great, we have freespeech and freedom of thought and ideas. They can't take this away from us, our strength. Let's not let "them" use that against us.
BTW: I have a friend from Jordan; yes he's more likely to get more scrutinized than I, and he takes it in stride, avoiding the appearance of suspicious behavior or breaking even the most minor law, which I might get some slack on. The true democratic thing would be authoritarian suspicion of everyone. It's a balance of freedom and security. That's democratic, common sense for the greater good? Just asking (rhetorically). Also during war sometimes some individuals rights get stepped on. US WWII Japanese internment is one example. Seems like a bad idea now, but may be understandable in 1942. Who's to say it did not help. We don't know.
Bottom Line: If you see, hear or think there's anything suspicious, regardless, report it, check it out. If the behavior is suspicious and they happen to be arab, It's got nothing to do with bigotry.
PS, We're talking about a hypothetical aren't we. Yes al qaeda could recruit persons of any background (trojan horse), including a little old Norwegian grandmother, however lets get back to common sense. Family? Kids are used by terrorist. They don't care. The way Israel does it, they ask probing questions, not just did you pack your bag. Of course ACLU and right to privacy may protest if questions are too probing. However we give up some privacy rights when we fly. We all can agree, law should apply equally to everyone.
Why? Just asking. It may not be cool but 9/11 is not cool either. Just saying. I disdain bigotry, but in context, is that bigotry? Just saying.szicree said:
All pilots should be treated equally, questioned the same. It's the answers and behavior which are the "tell" to a trained interrogator; we can't totally dismiss context?
The reality is the "enemy" emanates from the middle east. The enemy justifies their actions on the moral authority of the "Qur'an", ie islam/muslim. If it's true, it's not bigotry. The bigotry comes from assuming all arabs and muslims are terrorist. I don't think that is in play.
It's normal for good people to have a hard time believing the worst of other people. You just don't want to believe it, so we compensate by over accommodating to a group. Our own morality and goodness used against us if you will.
Debate from all points of view, thoughtfulness and constant watch is needed to strike the balance and maintain the good. Civil discourse is good and powerful. That is why America is great, we have freespeech and freedom of thought and ideas. They can't take this away from us, our strength. Let's not let "them" use that against us.
BTW: I have a friend from Jordan; yes he's more likely to get more scrutinized than I, and he takes it in stride, avoiding the appearance of suspicious behavior or breaking even the most minor law, which I might get some slack on. The true democratic thing would be authoritarian suspicion of everyone. It's a balance of freedom and security. That's democratic, common sense for the greater good? Just asking (rhetorically). Also during war sometimes some individuals rights get stepped on. US WWII Japanese internment is one example. Seems like a bad idea now, but may be understandable in 1942. Who's to say it did not help. We don't know.
Bottom Line: If you see, hear or think there's anything suspicious, regardless, report it, check it out. If the behavior is suspicious and they happen to be arab, It's got nothing to do with bigotry.
PS, We're talking about a hypothetical aren't we. Yes al qaeda could recruit persons of any background (trojan horse), including a little old Norwegian grandmother, however lets get back to common sense. Family? Kids are used by terrorist. They don't care. The way Israel does it, they ask probing questions, not just did you pack your bag. Of course ACLU and right to privacy may protest if questions are too probing. However we give up some privacy rights when we fly. We all can agree, law should apply equally to everyone.
Last edited:
tonyjohnson said:
I'm gonna call it straight up racist. There are terrorists in every country on Earth and I would also point out that there have been successful terrorist attacks by individuals of virtually every religious stripe. Ever hear of ETA, JDL, UDA, Aum Shinrikyo, or any of the dozens of non-Arab, Non-Islamic terrorist organizations? I've known several people named Ahmed, some muslim, some not, and not a single one was ever seen wearing a towel on his head.
tonyjohnson
Well Known Member
racist
Actually Steve, I think that if you research the issue you will not find any act of terrorism against the US, except for the Oklahoma bombing, that was not done by someone from the middle east, or an American convert to Islam trained in the middle east who also has an adopted a Muslim name.
In the example here, we have a family in an RV 10 and Ahmed. The USSS agent is "screening" to see if further investigation is needed.
If the USSS agent overlooks the obvious facts here that one pilot fits a terrorist profile and the other does not, he should be working for the state dept rather than the USSS. I like to think that USSS agents have some common sense.
It may turn out that Ahmed is totally innocent. The subsequent investigation will reveal the facts.
The agent can take one of two courses of action. He can treat Ahmed and the family in the RV10 the same, and subject both of them to further scrutiny, so that he can be PC and we can all feel good about treating all pilots exactly the same. Or, he can send Ahmed on his way with no further inquiry so as not to offend him.
I don't think that either of those courses of action would be appropriate.
Actually Steve, I think that if you research the issue you will not find any act of terrorism against the US, except for the Oklahoma bombing, that was not done by someone from the middle east, or an American convert to Islam trained in the middle east who also has an adopted a Muslim name.
In the example here, we have a family in an RV 10 and Ahmed. The USSS agent is "screening" to see if further investigation is needed.
If the USSS agent overlooks the obvious facts here that one pilot fits a terrorist profile and the other does not, he should be working for the state dept rather than the USSS. I like to think that USSS agents have some common sense.
It may turn out that Ahmed is totally innocent. The subsequent investigation will reveal the facts.
The agent can take one of two courses of action. He can treat Ahmed and the family in the RV10 the same, and subject both of them to further scrutiny, so that he can be PC and we can all feel good about treating all pilots exactly the same. Or, he can send Ahmed on his way with no further inquiry so as not to offend him.
I don't think that either of those courses of action would be appropriate.
Special treatment
Let's just hope we don't get any more Timothy McVeighs, cuz then all of us white, Christian good 'ole boys are going to be suspect.
Humans have an innate predisposition to discriminate. There have been volumes written on it. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it does not. If we fear Arabic Islamic terrorists, then it makes some sense to focus people who appear to be Arabic. If we fear Aryan terrorists, then we look for a shaved head and tattoos. Pretty clearly we'll get lots of false positives with both.
What's always surprising to me is that every month we lose more people to car crashes and hospital errors than all the people ever killed by terrorists, but we don't really seem to mind.
Let's just hope we don't get any more Timothy McVeighs, cuz then all of us white, Christian good 'ole boys are going to be suspect.
Humans have an innate predisposition to discriminate. There have been volumes written on it. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it does not. If we fear Arabic Islamic terrorists, then it makes some sense to focus people who appear to be Arabic. If we fear Aryan terrorists, then we look for a shaved head and tattoos. Pretty clearly we'll get lots of false positives with both.
What's always surprising to me is that every month we lose more people to car crashes and hospital errors than all the people ever killed by terrorists, but we don't really seem to mind.
tonyjohnson
Well Known Member
we disagree
Well Steve,
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. We are as far apart on the issue as Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain were.
No point in getting personal about it.
Well Steve,
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. We are as far apart on the issue as Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain were.
No point in getting personal about it.
Last edited:
Ralph Kramden
Active Member
With all due respect it needs to be said...
We are not at war against terrorism. We are at war against militant Islam. Or should I say that militant Islam is at war against us. It is that simple. No one wants to admit this because we are supposed to be above fighting wars based on religion. But the fact of the matter is that Islamists hate us to the core of our beings simply because of who we are not - they hate us because we are not Muslims.
And we are going to be in this war for the rest of our lives. Unless we all convert to Islam, make the USA an Islamic Republic and all start speaking Arabic. The best we will ever do in our lifetime is to move our foreign relations to a point where there is not active conflict with the Muslims. But even that is not likely what with the way Iran is moving with nuclear weapons. More likely, we will be moving towards another cold war with security coming only through a policy of nuclear deterence.
From my posts you should see that I believe that police need to be careful to treat non-criminals as just that - non-criminals. In fact, I am myself a former police officer from the Chicago area. I believe it accomplishes nothing to harrass people who are not criminals and particularily tasteless and useless to harrass them because of their race. But when our enemy is in fact defined by his race and his religion that must be taken into account when conducting an investigation.
Again, what I am all about here is that common sense be used in responding to potential threats. If it is obvious that the potential threat is not an actual threat then it is time to drop it and move on to the next potential threat.
By the way, I once had tickets to fly on United Flight 175 the week of September 11th 2001 - a minor scheduling detail is why me and my wife are still alive.
--Ralph "The Boob" Kramden
We are not at war against terrorism. We are at war against militant Islam. Or should I say that militant Islam is at war against us. It is that simple. No one wants to admit this because we are supposed to be above fighting wars based on religion. But the fact of the matter is that Islamists hate us to the core of our beings simply because of who we are not - they hate us because we are not Muslims.
And we are going to be in this war for the rest of our lives. Unless we all convert to Islam, make the USA an Islamic Republic and all start speaking Arabic. The best we will ever do in our lifetime is to move our foreign relations to a point where there is not active conflict with the Muslims. But even that is not likely what with the way Iran is moving with nuclear weapons. More likely, we will be moving towards another cold war with security coming only through a policy of nuclear deterence.
From my posts you should see that I believe that police need to be careful to treat non-criminals as just that - non-criminals. In fact, I am myself a former police officer from the Chicago area. I believe it accomplishes nothing to harrass people who are not criminals and particularily tasteless and useless to harrass them because of their race. But when our enemy is in fact defined by his race and his religion that must be taken into account when conducting an investigation.
Again, what I am all about here is that common sense be used in responding to potential threats. If it is obvious that the potential threat is not an actual threat then it is time to drop it and move on to the next potential threat.
By the way, I once had tickets to fly on United Flight 175 the week of September 11th 2001 - a minor scheduling detail is why me and my wife are still alive.
--Ralph "The Boob" Kramden
Last edited:
JimLogajan
Active Member
DeltaRomeo said:
It's good to see an end to those tip-up vs. slider and nose-wheel vs. tail-wheel religion posts!
(Tries to duck and run ... too late ... I've been hit by "Silly, pointless topics will be deleted."
)
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
There has been some good debate on all sides. I am amazed every time I log on and see that this thread is still running. Maybe it is time for us to let Pilot Boob go park his plane.JimLogajan said:It's good to see an end to those tip-up vs. slider and nose-wheel vs. tail-wheel religion posts!
(Tries to duck and run ... too late ... I've been hit by "Silly, pointless topics will be deleted."
For all of us - sometimes we need something silly to break it all up.
Ralph Kramden
Active Member
Phyrcooler said:. . .
Maybe it is time for us to let Pilot Boob go park his plane.
For all of us - sometimes we need something silly to break it all up.
<<<Warning - the following is a lame attempt at humor - Warning>>>
It so happened that Pilot Boob was out flying his RV-10 when he crossed into the TFR that resulted from John Edwards stopping in at Miami to get a haircut. Boob was promptly intercepted by N98HK (Dave) and Groucho (Bryan) who took turns flying inverted over Boob's plane at one and a half meters taking polaroid photos. Boob didn't know what to do so he called flight service on 122.0. Flight Watch then advised him to call ATC on 121.5. Wildthing heard the call on 121.5 and advised Boob to follow the fighters to the airfield they directed. Boob did so and landed whereupon he was roughed up by a vacationing off-duty Deputy Ralph and turned over to Secret Service agent Tony for "questioning". All this was caught on videotape by Doug using his new wheelpants mounted video camera. The video will soon be posted on the VAF website.
--REK
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
rv8ch said:
I had my own balloon intercept yesterday - we "intercepted" the Sanyo blimp over GKY yesterday. Approach was amused to hear us ask him about that traffic
