Emergency services - Off topic? Planes (My quiet street)

Author

Off topic? Planes (My quiet street)

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-25, 8:56 am

About six weeks ago I moved from Silver Spring, Md. to Gaithersburg,
Maryland. There were several reason why I had to move, mainly the
closing of an estate. I was kind of glad to get away from the
excitement and insanity of the DC Beltway that was literally
about 1200 feet from my front door! And my neighborhood was
getting loud ... the people and the loud mufflers on the small
Hondas that were constantly speeding by.

In Gaithersburg things are much more peaceful. Not much noise
or excitement. I'm just situated on a very quiet street
with hardly any traffic. Good, right? Kind of. Until Sunday
evening.

As I was upstairs I heard the roar of a plane. A loud plane.
A plane that was passing overhead very, very fast! Then I
could hear another loud plane. Ahh, now I knew what it was.
The Blue Angels were probably showing off because they were
leaving the air show from Andrews Air Force Base. Wait ... no,
that was yesterday! What the hell?

I knew something was going on and I really didn't want to know.
I wondered if another small plane had strayed into restricted
airspace near the Mall. About an hour later I turned on CNN
and there it was! Cameras live in Gaithersburg! Police
escorting four people away from a small plane -- sitting on
the runway at Montgomery Airpark. It happened again!

And now they want to open up National Airport for Commercial
and corporate flights ... but there must be a sky marshal
on every flight. Will this help things?

Here are a few questions ... and I know there's no (cut & dry)
correct answer, just opinions:

1) Were any of these planes (in the past two weeks) close enough
to be considered dangerous enough to shoot down?

2) Should the instructor of the 1st incident lose his license
forever?

3) If one of these planes were shot down, in the past two weeks,
would the Democrats go crazy and accuse Bush of being a maniac?

KM

Notan

2005-05-25, 8:56 am

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 3) If one of these planes were shot down, in the past two weeks,
> would the Democrats go crazy and accuse Bush of being a maniac?

Why? It would have been the first rational decision he's made
in years!

Notan

Peter Duniho

2005-05-25, 8:56 am

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4293F8BB.2AB4F203@ix.netcom.com...
> 1) Were any of these planes (in the past two weeks) close enough
> to be considered dangerous enough to shoot down?

Considered by whom? A Cessna 150 wouldn't be dangerous enough to justify
shooting down, even if it was at maximum dive speed three inches from its
target.

Has everyone already forgotten the airplane that the suicidal teenager flew
into a Florida office building? A bit of window glass was broken, and a
desk got rearranged.

I don't doubt there are people out there panicked about all sorts of small
airplanes. But they simply aren't a threat, and they aren't worth all the
attention (and $$$$$) spent on trying to "deal with them".

> 2) Should the instructor of the 1st incident lose his license
> forever?

We'll see. He will have to get through all of the basic testing
requirements any new pilot has to do. It seems unlikely to me that a pilot
who failed so miserably in the situation in which he did, would ever be able
to get past those hurdles again. I think it's entirely possible he's in the
early stages of some sort of dementia, but in any case, it's clear his deck
isn't as full as it was when he was original certificated as a pilot (likely
decades ago).

> 3) If one of these planes were shot down, in the past two weeks,
> would the Democrats go crazy and accuse Bush of being a maniac?

They haven't already? I personally have lots of complaints about the whole
post-9/11 thing, and especially Bush's hand in it (but Cheney's even more
so). But if a plane gets shot down, I don't see how one would be able to
put the blame solely on Bush. It's taken hundreds of so-called leaders,
mostly people we actually voted for (and I use the term "we" loosely

),
to accomplish the insane loss of freedoms in our country.

No, I don't see how the downing of a private airplane inside the US by our
military would necessarily reflect more poorly on Bush than any other
politician working in D.C. these days, Democrat or Republican. They are all
nuts, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, everyone who replies, remove their own newsgroup from the follow-ups,
and maybe we can get this ridiculously cross-posted thread dead.

Pete

Bob Gardner

2005-05-25, 5:54 pm

There was no instructor in the Cessna 150 that was forced to land in
Frederick.

Bob Gardner

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4293F8BB.2AB4F203@ix.netcom.com...
> About six weeks ago I moved from Silver Spring, Md. to Gaithersburg,
> Maryland. There were several reason why I had to move, mainly the
> closing of an estate. I was kind of glad to get away from the
> excitement and insanity of the DC Beltway that was literally
> about 1200 feet from my front door! And my neighborhood was
> getting loud ... the people and the loud mufflers on the small
> Hondas that were constantly speeding by.
>
> In Gaithersburg things are much more peaceful. Not much noise
> or excitement. I'm just situated on a very quiet street
> with hardly any traffic. Good, right? Kind of. Until Sunday
> evening.
>
> As I was upstairs I heard the roar of a plane. A loud plane.
> A plane that was passing overhead very, very fast! Then I
> could hear another loud plane. Ahh, now I knew what it was.
> The Blue Angels were probably showing off because they were
> leaving the air show from Andrews Air Force Base. Wait ... no,
> that was yesterday! What the hell?
>
> I knew something was going on and I really didn't want to know.
> I wondered if another small plane had strayed into restricted
> airspace near the Mall. About an hour later I turned on CNN
> and there it was! Cameras live in Gaithersburg! Police
> escorting four people away from a small plane -- sitting on
> the runway at Montgomery Airpark. It happened again!
>
> And now they want to open up National Airport for Commercial
> and corporate flights ... but there must be a sky marshal
> on every flight. Will this help things?
>
> Here are a few questions ... and I know there's no (cut & dry)
> correct answer, just opinions:
>
> 1) Were any of these planes (in the past two weeks) close enough
> to be considered dangerous enough to shoot down?
>
> 2) Should the instructor of the 1st incident lose his license
> forever?
>
> 3) If one of these planes were shot down, in the past two weeks,
> would the Democrats go crazy and accuse Bush of being a maniac?
>
> KM

Carey Gregory

2005-05-25, 10:54 pm

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:

>Considered by whom? A Cessna 150 wouldn't be dangerous enough to justify
>shooting down, even if it was at maximum dive speed three inches from its
>target.

A Cessna 150 can carry about 400-500 pounds of payload. Since that's the
_safe_ weight it can carry, and terrorists sure as hell don't give a damn
about safety, figure it could be loaded with 400 lbs of explosives plus the
pilot and minimal fuel. 400 lbs of the right explosives will easily take
out the White House, a good chunk of the capital building, or kill one hell
of a lot of people in a stadium. And, of course, a small nuke could
vaporize several blocks and you wouldn't even have to crash into the target,
just get close to it.

So, your statement is true only if you assume the bad guys are too stupid to
think of things like this, and I think it's safe to say they've already
proven that to be a bad assumption. Therefore, worrying about small
aircraft isn't so unreasonable after all.

danny burstein

2005-05-25, 10:54 pm

In <481a91p1jh5in9n3j3tu0vojevr8685nea@4ax.com> Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> writes:

>A Cessna 150 can carry about 400-500 pounds of payload. Since that's the
>_safe_ weight it can carry, and terrorists sure as hell don't give a damn
>about safety, figure it could be loaded with 400 lbs of explosives plus the
>pilot and minimal fuel.

Yes, we all saw NCIS last night. And that was a nasty surprise at the
end...

[spoiler space ]

[spoiler space ]

[spoiler space ]

[ last chance ]

They killed off Kate.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0364845/
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-25, 10:54 pm

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:4293F8BB.2AB4F203@ix.netcom.com...
>
> Considered by whom? A Cessna 150 wouldn't be dangerous enough to justify
> shooting down, even if it was at maximum dive speed three inches from its
> target.
>
> Has everyone already forgotten the airplane that the suicidal teenager flew
> into a Florida office building? A bit of window glass was broken, and a
> desk got rearranged.
>
> I don't doubt there are people out there panicked about all sorts of small
> airplanes. But they simply aren't a threat, and they aren't worth all the
> attention (and $$$$$) spent on trying to "deal with them".

If they are no threat, why are they being chased and forced to land?

> Now, everyone who replies, remove their own newsgroup from the follow-ups,
> and maybe we can get this ridiculously cross-posted thread dead.

>
> Pete

Why? It all seems to be on topic, if you wish to participate.

Like plane photos? Like beaches? Look at this!

http://snapshot.parade.com/0515/0515_airplane.html

(KM)

Peter Duniho

2005-05-26, 8:54 am

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:42954071.D91806AB@ix.netcom.com...
>
> If they are no threat, why are they being chased and forced to land?

The same reason that our government pretends all manner of other things are
threats that warrant the boondoggle that is the Department of Homeland
Security, the War on Iraq, and everything else related.

You are quite gullible indeed if you think that the mere fact of government
activity is proof of justification.

Pete

Garner Miller

2005-05-26, 8:54 am

In article <42954071.D91806AB@ix.netcom.com>, <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> If they are no threat, why are they being chased and forced to land?
>

Are you kidding? For the same reason we're wanding 85-year-old women
in wheelchairs. A dog-and-pony show for the uneducated, to prove to
them that the government's "doing something." It's all eyewash.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

Steve & Susan

2005-05-26, 8:54 am

On Thu, 26 May 2005 00:29:21 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>[spoiler space ]

I understand that in USA Today Donald Belisario was quoted as saying
that actor did not want to make a long term commitment to the show.

Steve

pobox-dc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-26, 11:50 am

Garner Miller wrote:
>
> In article <42954071.D91806AB@ix.netcom.com>, <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Are you kidding? For the same reason we're wanding 85-year-old women
> in wheelchairs. A dog-and-pony show for the uneducated, to prove to
> them that the government's "doing something." It's all eyewash.
>
> --
> Garner R. Miller
> ATP/CFII/MEI
> Clifton Park, NY =USA=

That's an expensive show they put on! I wish the government
would take the borders more seriously. This state here is
starting to burst from all the illegal citizens.

(KM)

Volunteers recruited to help catch illegal immigrants in East Tennessee

WBIR (Knoxville, TN), May 21, 2005
http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=25845

They work on the U.S border in Arizona, as part of a volunteer army
called the Minutemen. Soon, the brigade will be in Tennessee with a
mission of catching companies that hire illegal immigrants.

'If people are hiring them, they're usually paid under the table.
They're not getting any workmen's comp,' said David Heppler of
Arizona Border Watch.

Those behind the effort say volunteers will patrol local businesses,
looking for employers that are hiring people who've illegally crossed
the border.

The US Boarder Patrol says they've never endorsed the activities of the
Minutemen in Arizona, stressing that it's the Border Patrol's job to
catch illegal immigrants.

Some in East Tennessee say these kinds of tactics amount to begging for
trouble.

'I worry they'll come up here and start some kind of chaos,' says
Hispanic activist Luis Crespo.

Crespo fears minority groups will become unfair targets, regardless if
they're American citizens.

'Morristown, Hamblen County is blessed because we have people from all
over the country, the industries come from around the globe,' said
Crespo.

'This is not an Hispanic issue. This is an issue of undocumented
workers from any country. Not just Mexico. The problem with the public
is that they think United States/Mexico,' said Heppler.

Despite the objections, the Minutemen are moving forward. They hope to
have as many as 600 volunteers in just two months.
====end of posting=====

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-26, 11:50 am

Garner Miller wrote:
>
> In article <42954071.D91806AB@ix.netcom.com>, <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Are you kidding? For the same reason we're wanding 85-year-old women
> in wheelchairs. A dog-and-pony show for the uneducated, to prove to
> them that the government's "doing something." It's all eyewash.
>
> --
> Garner R. Miller
> ATP/CFII/MEI
> Clifton Park, NY =USA=

That's an expensive show they put on! I wish the government
would take the borders more seriously. Maryland is
starting to burst from all the illegal citizens.

(KM)

Volunteers recruited to help catch illegal immigrants in East Tennessee

WBIR (Knoxville, TN), May 21, 2005
http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=25845

They work on the U.S border in Arizona, as part of a volunteer army
called the Minutemen. Soon, the brigade will be in Tennessee with a
mission of catching companies that hire illegal immigrants.

'If people are hiring them, they're usually paid under the table.
They're not getting any workmen's comp,' said David Heppler of
Arizona Border Watch.

Those behind the effort say volunteers will patrol local businesses,
looking for employers that are hiring people who've illegally crossed
the border.

The US Boarder Patrol says they've never endorsed the activities of the
Minutemen in Arizona, stressing that it's the Border Patrol's job to
catch illegal immigrants.

Some in East Tennessee say these kinds of tactics amount to begging for
trouble.

'I worry they'll come up here and start some kind of chaos,' says
Hispanic activist Luis Crespo.

Crespo fears minority groups will become unfair targets, regardless if
they're American citizens.

'Morristown, Hamblen County is blessed because we have people from all
over the country, the industries come from around the globe,' said
Crespo.

'This is not an Hispanic issue. This is an issue of undocumented
workers from any country. Not just Mexico. The problem with the public
is that they think United States/Mexico,' said Heppler.

Despite the objections, the Minutemen are moving forward. They hope to
have as many as 600 volunteers in just two months.
====end of posting=====

Dan Luke

2005-05-26, 5:54 pm

<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> That's an expensive show they put on! I wish the government
> would take the borders more seriously. Maryland is
> starting to burst from all the illegal citizens.

Don't hold your breath. Business wants the cheap labor, and The Party of
Business is in power.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Kurt Ullman

2005-05-26, 5:54 pm

In article <119c961qqaf7s3d@news.supernews.com>, "Dan Luke"
<c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>
><poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Don't hold your breath. Business wants the cheap labor, and The Party of
>Business is in power.

Yeah, the Dems have been really hot to stop all the illegals
coming.

----
Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on
an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.
Stolen from Billo in misc.writing

Matt Whiting

2005-05-26, 5:54 pm

Dan Luke wrote:
> <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't hold your breath. Business wants the cheap labor, and The Party of
> Business is in power.

Yep, and the Party of Nobody is pouting.

Matt

Carey Gregory

2005-05-27, 5:55 pm

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:

>The same reason that our government pretends all manner of other things are
>threats that warrant the boondoggle that is the Department of Homeland
>Security, the War on Iraq, and everything else related.

While I agree that most of the so-called security measures are little more
than a huge waste of time and money, the potential for a small aircraft to
be used as an effective weapon is blatantly obvious.

PilotCFI

2005-05-27, 5:55 pm

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in
news:abpe91tqkt4qfhs7hecthgfd89g52bur5c@4ax.com:

> "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote:
>
>
> While I agree that most of the so-called security measures are little
> more than a huge waste of time and money, the potential for a small
> aircraft to be used as an effective weapon is blatantly obvious.

Not obvious to me. In a test the Japanese flew an old jetliner into a
simulated nuclear plant cooling tower. Result? plane demolished and the
tower was scratched. Can anything be used for ill will? Of course. But in
the aftermath of 9/11 and Oklahoma, why are small planes targeted and
trucks with more carrying capacity are ignored?

PilotCFI/CFII

Bob Noel

2005-05-27, 5:55 pm

In article <abpe91tqkt4qfhs7hecthgfd89g52bur5c@4ax.com>,
Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote:

> While I agree that most of the so-called security measures are little more
> than a huge waste of time and money, the potential for a small aircraft to
> be used as an effective weapon is blatantly obvious.

well, I suppose "zero" is a potential. :-/

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Don Hammer

2005-05-28, 5:53 pm

>
>If they are no threat, why are they being chased and forced to land?
>

There are many things in this life that the government does to placate
all the ignorant voters out there. The average voter doesn't know
diddle about airplanes.

Joe six-pack is sure that a 1200 lb Cessna that can't lift two 200
pound people can do more damage than the 80,000 pound trucks that go
by their front door every day.

The terrorists will strike again and it probably won't be in
airplanes. I'm betting on a truck, cargo container, or bus. The
question then is, will we all climb into caves and severely restrict
them?

There were over 13,000 murders in the US last year that had nothing to
do with terror. It must be safer to be in Baghdad than Washington DC
as the murder rates are lower. When will all the dumb-asses get
paranoid over that?

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Roger

2005-05-29, 8:54 am

On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:55:07 -0500, Don Hammer <dlh@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>There are many things in this life that the government does to placate
>all the ignorant voters out there. The average voter doesn't know
>diddle about airplanes.
>
>Joe six-pack is sure that a 1200 lb Cessna that can't lift two 200
>pound people can do more damage than the 80,000 pound trucks that go
>by their front door every day.
>
>The terrorists will strike again and it probably won't be in
>airplanes. I'm betting on a truck, cargo container, or bus. The
>question then is, will we all climb into caves and severely restrict
>them?
>
>There were over 13,000 murders in the US last year that had nothing to
>do with terror. It must be safer to be in Baghdad than Washington DC
>as the murder rates are lower. When will all the dumb-asses get
>paranoid over that?

We kill off over 40,000 a year on the highways. Now there is something
to be paranoid about! It's so common a fatal wreck only makes the
local paper unless it's spectacular of some one well known. In a car
you are at the mercy of the other drivers. Night before last we had
a guy lose control out on the expressway, cross the median and take a
pick up truck head on. What was left didn't even look like cars or
trucks, or even like they ever had been. Alcohol was not involved,
but they figure the guy who lost control may have been doing close to
a hundred. One idiot and one just minding his own business. Both
gone.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

Carey Gregory

2005-05-29, 8:54 am

Dan Luke

2005-05-29, 11:50 am

"Kurt Ullman" wrote:
>
> Yeah, the Dems have been really hot to stop all the illegals
> coming.

They have their own pressure groups to appease. Neither party will do
anything.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Steve & Susan

2005-05-29, 5:54 pm

On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:58:16 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:

>We kill off over 40,000 a year on the highways.

That's because we have local politicians who pride themselves on their
policies of fiscal austerity rather than being able to apply their
available funds wisely. Here in Missouri, most of the "state highways"
are narrow, winding two lane roads which have blind hills/ curves and
no shoulders. And, some genius at the state engineered 4 - 6 ft.
gouges in the side of the road for drainage because a storm sewer
system (and the maintenance of such) were not figured into the
construction budget.

There is no margin for error and mostly 20+ linear miles of no passing
zone.

People in this county go off the road and roll over every day, and it
doesn't even require being a careless or imprudent driver. Many of
them die. (As I type this, my pager just went off to inform the
overhead group of another rollover accident outside of my district.
Before this weekend is over, there will be several more - guaranteed).

That's bad, but there's worse. That lack of a shoulder or second lane
for slow drivers or farm equipment means people are crossing the
double lines and occasionally you crest a hill and see someone coming
at you in your lane and there is nothing else to do but ditch right.
With more greenspace constantly turning into subdivision (without
building collateral roadways and connecting subdivisions internally),
it will only get worse.

>Now there is something
>to be paranoid about! It's so common a fatal wreck only makes the
>local paper unless it's spectacular of some one well known. In a car
>you are at the mercy of the other drivers. Night before last we had
>a guy lose control out on the expressway, cross the median and take a
>pick up truck head on. What was left didn't even look like cars or
>trucks, or even like they ever had been. Alcohol was not involved,
>but they figure the guy who lost control may have been doing close to
>a hundred. One idiot and one just minding his own business. Both
>gone.

And, like in my state, where is that divider across the median? One of
the local medical examiners here has been leading the charge with
public awareness campaigns for dividers across Interstate 70 since
I've moved out here (surprisingly we've made it 9 years). It was only
few years ago when MoDOT received the funding from the Missouri
legislature to actually build one in some sections. Part of that was
because there is a constitutional amendment which prohibits the
collection of surplus funds and requires major capital expenditures to
be voted for in referendum ballot. We all know that NONE OF US needs
any of these protective measures. "I'm a good driver and I'll never
need it; screw anyone else." <smirk> Consequently, referendums for
(real) safety initiatives are defeated, along with related things,
like cost recovery for wireless 9-1-1 (typical wireless call:
Telecommunicator: "What is your location, sir?" Caller: "I'm on a two
lane road near a farm with cows. There are lots of trees. I left the
Interstate about a half hour ago.")

Then there are the "speed limit: optional" zones, where there is no
law enforcement around to keep a safe speed or take poor drivers off
the road. I get passed by drivers doing well over 85 every time I'm on
the Interstate. Where are the cops? They're making more money doing
construction work with a lot less trouble.

And, we're spending money hand over fist buying $ecurity Zeppelins and
rocket ships and robots "for the big one," but completely overlook the
everyday enhancements to the services we provide which are useful not
just at the big one, but for the hundreds of thousands of little ones
(I or someone I know may be the next one to need that unfunded and
missing guard rail) that happen every single day in between.

>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

73 & many controlled langings!
Steve

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-30, 9:01 am

>
> Pete

Why? It all seems to be on topic, if you wish to participate.

Like plane photos? Like beaches? Look at this!

http://snapshot.parade.com/0515/0515_airplane.html

(KM)

Carey Gregory

2005-05-31, 5:53 pm

PilotCFI <dmalcolm@hiwaay.net> wrote:

>Carey Gregory <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:abpe91tqkt4qfhs7hecthgfd89g52bur5c@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Not obvious to me. In a test the Japanese flew an old jetliner into a
>simulated nuclear plant cooling tower. Result? plane demolished and the
>tower was scratched. Can anything be used for ill will? Of course. But in
>the aftermath of 9/11 and Oklahoma, why are small planes targeted and
>trucks with more carrying capacity are ignored?

As I've already pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult to load a Cessna with
enough explosives, biologicals, or nuke material to make it an effective
weapon. I don't think anyone seriously believes the plane itself is
dangerous -- it's what can be placed on board that makes it dangerous.

And while I agree greater risks are being largely ignored (eg, trucks), what
makes a plane such a concern is its ability to get close to sensitive
facilities quickly and easily, and the difficulty of stopping it as compared
to stopping land vehicles. After all, you don't need F-16s to stop a box
truck.

Andrew Gideon

2005-05-31, 5:53 pm

Carey Gregory wrote:

> And while I agree greater risks are being largely ignored (eg, trucks),
> what makes a plane such a concern is its ability to get close to sensitive
> facilities quickly and easily, and the difficulty of stopping it as
> compared to stopping land vehicles.Â_Â_AfterÂ_all,Â_youÂ_don'tÂ_needÂ_F-16sÂ_to
> stopÂ_aÂ_box truck.

That a truck is easy to stop is not relevant if the truck isn't being
stopped. Someone could be driving a truck about the DC area for hours w/o
being stopped. During all that time, various toxins can be dumped into the
local atmosphere.

That's much more of a risk than an incredibly obvious plane which cannot
carry nearly as much weight in toxin as the slightest of trucks (or even
cars).

But the NYTimes today had a little piece that explained why even my scenario
above is unlikely; there are far better targets for terrorists that we're
securing in no way whatsoever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30wein.html

...
But there is a third possibility that, while it seems far
more mundane, could be just as deadly: terrorists spreading
a toxin that causes botulism throughout the nation's milk supply.
...

The article goes on to describe just how easily this can be accomplished
using today's complete lack of security.

So the government has useless and expensive "show pieces" like the ADIZ,
while threats to US citizens - and primarily in this case, our children -
are ignored. Or perhaps the Bush Administration doesn't drink a lot of
milk, so it feels no reason to fear that threat.

But the reality is the government is grandstanding while putting our
children at risk.

- Andrew

Carey Gregory

2005-05-31, 10:52 pm

Andrew Gideon <ag7337@gideon.org> wrote:

>But the reality is the government is grandstanding while putting our
>children at risk.

You'll get no argument from me that most of the post-9/11 security measures
are useless wastes of time and money. (But, really, there's no need to
throw in the children thing for emotional effect. We're all at risk.)

However, I do think flight restrictions over sensitive targets aren't
unreasonable. It makes sense to defend against the threats you can within
reasonable cost and disruption. Biological and nuke attacks are difficult,
complex and expensive, so worrying about those from aircraft probably isn't
worth the effort. Like you said, it would be easier and more effective to
deliver it from land.

But explosives are cheap and it does make sense to deliver them from the air
since getting close to the White House (or wherever) with a box truck is
likely to prove very difficult. It would be much easier to do it from the
air (if airspace there was unrestricted). I've already provided the
calculations showing you could put enough explosives in a Cessna to do
serious damage, so it's not an unreasonable concern.

Restricted airspaces have always existed in aviation. I fail to see why
it's so unreasonable now.

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2005-05-31, 10:52 pm

Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> Andrew Gideon <ag7337@gideon.org> wrote:
>
>
> You'll get no argument from me that most of the post-9/11 security measures
> are useless wastes of time and money.

Yea, remember when they encouraged us all to keep duct tape
nearby?

(KM)

Andrew Gideon

2005-05-31, 10:52 pm

Carey Gregory wrote:

> Andrew Gideon <ag7337@gideon.org> wrote:
>
>
> You'll get no argument from me that most of the post-9/11 security
> measures
> are useless wastes of time and money. (But, really, there's no need to
> throw in the children thing for emotional effect. We're all at risk.)

It's my sense of justice. The theocrats like to use "think of the children"
as an excuse for all sorts of abuses of freedom; turnabout is fair play.

[...]

>
> Restricted airspaces have always existed in aviation. I fail to see why
> it's so unreasonable now.

It's a very expensive tool which achieves very little. Spending the same
effort/money/manpower on something more effective (ie. guarding our food
supply, perhaps) would be the wise choice. But that doesn't have the same
PR value of "doing something" that's highly visible.

And it doesn't serve to protect only the self-important people making the
rules.

- Andrew

Notan

2005-06-01, 5:53 pm

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> Carey Gregory wrote:
>
> Yea, remember when they encouraged us all to keep duct tape
> nearby?

I remember that suggestion from *way* before 9-11! <g>

Notan

Carey Gregory

2005-06-02, 10:57 pm

Andrew Gideon <ag7337@gideon.org> wrote:

>And it doesn't serve to protect only the self-important people making the
>rules.

You have to protect high priority targets, and government leaders are always
high priority.

I think we agree about security measures in general, we just disagree on
whether it's reasonable to restrict airspace above high priority targets.
If I were the secret service, I would be extremely nervous about Cessnas
droning overhead knowing any one of them could be loaded with explosives,
shoulder-launched missiles, or even a small nuke. They would have only
seconds to decide if it's a threat and react to it, so every single plane
overhead would have to be watched intently on a 24/7 basis. I'd say that
scenario would eventually lead to some poor bastard getting his XXX blown
out of the sky by a nervous SS agent with a Stinger.

Andrew Gideon

2005-06-02, 10:57 pm

Carey Gregory wrote:

> You have to protect high priority targets, and government leaders are
> always high priority.

We've a well defined order of succession precisely for this reason: to avoid
having high priority targets. It's not like a dictatorship where capturing
or killing the dictator brings down the government.

Yes, there's PR value is killing a government leader, even of a democracy.
It's not the safest job in the world. Neither is being a police officer, a
soldier, etc. Some people are willing to volunteer for these jobs; others
not.

It's even appropriate for those taking these jobs to be interested in
minimizing that risk. But at what cost? How many extra soldiers (or
protected vehicles) (or police officers) (or milk inspectors) (...) would
be bought with the total cost of the ADIZ? When is it right for a leader
to say "the safety of those people serving our country is more important
than my own personal safety"?

And this isn't even really about safety. We could make the President safe
by keeping him in a hole somewhere. No worries. But his freedom of
movement is more important than all those alternative ways to spend that
money, and more important than the freedom of movement of the pilots in the
DC area?

> If I were the secret service, I would be extremely nervous about Cessnas
> droning overhead knowing any one of them could be loaded with explosives,
> shoulder-launched missiles, or even a small nuke.

If the secret service spends more time on this than on the possibility of a
large nuke in a truck, then they're fools. Building a fission weapon isn't
all that tough. Building a *small* fission weapon - one that can be
carried in a small airplane, launched on a missile, etc. - is the more
difficult problem.

So if we're considering a nuclear weapon, we're far more likely to see a
large "home grown" (or "Made in Korea") device than something small enough
to fit into a small airplane.

Similar logic holds for just about every other type of weapon.

> I'dÂ_sayÂ_that
> scenario would eventually lead to some poor bastard getting his XXX blown
> out of the sky by a nervous SS agent with a Stinger.

I hope not, but it's certainly a possibility. And the fallout from that
would be interesting to say the least. If people are hurt or killed by
falling debris (or the first couple of missiles that miss), then we'll have
an excuse to bring our priorities back to sanity. Unfortunately, it'll be
too late for the victims.

Or is a leader's freedom of movement more important than the population of
DC?

- Andrew

Carey Gregory

2005-06-03, 9:00 am

Bob Noel

2005-06-03, 9:00 am