10-12-2006, 01:26 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2006, 01:33 AM | #12 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Hoya, in terms of air security, it appears you're out of your league, because your expectations are NOT reasonable.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-12-2006, 01:35 AM | #13 | |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
Quote:
I don't see how this has anything to do with whoever is in charge of North American defense, but it seems that the FAA needs to change some policies on flights of small aircraft.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
|
10-12-2006, 01:38 AM | #14 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
The FAA has plenty to do, and making flight more difficult for small planes and pilots shouldn't be one of them.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-12-2006, 01:38 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I have been to Manhattan countless times. I have yet to see an airplane flying at 500 feet over the city. I am unaware of any airport on Manhattan itself that a small plane would take off from, leading me to conclude it took off from outside of Manhattan and then flew over the city. This happens dozens of times a week in DC. Whenever it does happen, they first attempt radio contact, then respond with fighter jets. On occasion, the plane gets close to important areas in DC and evacuation procedures take place at those venues. This is extremely rare, though, because the communication and fighter jets usually produces the retreat of the aircraft. Most of those planes are small planes like this one in NYC. Why could DC track them and not NYC? |
|
10-12-2006, 01:44 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
|
|
10-12-2006, 01:49 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
10-12-2006, 01:50 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
|
10-12-2006, 01:50 AM | #19 |
Board Pinhead
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the basement of my house, Murray, Utah.
Posts: 15,941
|
That's a good point. I didn't mean it to make it more difficult for piolots of small aircraft, but more for air traffic controllers to be able to keep an eye for possible problems like this. I realize that the controllers have enough problems as is, but thius may have been avoidable had they known about it through their instruments.
__________________
"The beauty of baseball is not having to explain it." - Chuck Shriver "This is now the joke that stupid people laugh at." - Christopher Hitchens on IQ jokes about GWB. |
10-12-2006, 02:03 AM | #20 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
First, despite civilian expectations, no country has complete control or knowledge of its skies. No country possesses the technology or resources to employ sufficient technologies to patrol the skies. Second, DC airspace is far more secure than almost any other airspace in the world. To compare NY with DC is unfair. Third, I have not reviewed the restricted airspace rules for Manhattan, but without such knowledge I believe I could take off tomorrow from an adjacent airspace and fly above Manhattan VFR. I also believe it is highly likely this would go unnoticed by NORAD. Fourth, there are holes in radar. To avoid unnecessary disclosures, nothing more will be said. Fifth, not all pieces are automatically linked within NORAD and it takes time for reports to get to various personnel. Your expectations are unreasonable, but have it your way, blame Bush, he should have seen it coming and contacted the media.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|