Post #8,655
9/12/01 3:44:39 PM
|
It is weird.
Was at the airport yesterday and today (C62). Absolutely no noise on the radio. Dead silence - that was very wierd.
We're all still grounded and I'm sorry, but the odds that a C172 could be loaded with explosives and make it anywhere from C62 are so remote as to be laughable.
|
Post #8,662
9/12/01 3:57:07 PM
|
Not really.
From a mailing list I'm on:
"Subject: RE: FDC SPECIAL NOTICE
The lockdown is not for air safety, it's to close avenues of escape. Here in Houston the automated briefing includes that VFR flights will be forced down by F-16's. That's a hell of a deal to force down private planes during peacetime... Since the FAA cannot authorize military actions, who's pulling the strings to keep me on the ground?"
There were more targets - PRESUMably.. terrorists who didn't manage to get control... you want them down, in unfamilar territory, and not going anywhere.
As to your C172, sure. But they're worried about "staged" attacks, and maybe the next stage is a small plane...
Addison
|
Post #8,664
9/12/01 3:59:32 PM
|
most arrests too...
There were more targets - PRESUMably.. terrorists who didn't manage to get control... you want them down, in unfamilar territory, and not going anywhere.
3 more in Boston (according to rumor/news report).
|
Post #8,669
9/12/01 4:20:16 PM
|
So, what do we do?
Just ban GA until we're *sure* no pilots are terrorists? You're never going to be able to do that.
|
Post #8,675
9/12/01 4:29:23 PM
|
No.
Just until the threat is under control.
Like right now - the FBI is making arrests and grabbing people attempting to flee, apparently.
Planes are starting to get back up, and GA will be released when the rest is.
Addison
|
Post #8,676
9/12/01 4:30:59 PM
|
You know something I don't?
From AOPA:
"There is no word yet on when general aviation flights might resume."
|
Post #8,686
9/12/01 4:45:34 PM
|
Just the NOTAM.
Right now the NOTAM has restricted landings and takeoffs.
When that's removed, then so should all the GA restrictions.
Addison
|
Post #8,689
9/12/01 4:56:42 PM
|
Can you imagine the NOTAMs that'll be out shortly?
Can't fly over New York, parts of PA, etc., etc., etc.
All necessary, mind you. This could make for a very nasty, nasty. I can envision a new rule saying that all XC VFR flights have to have VFR flight plans filed. Hire a bunch more FSS employees to keep track of everybody. Maybe *require* radios and transponders for all aircraft flying 50 miles or greater from home airport. Ick, I hope none of this is occuring to anyone but me.
|
Post #8,691
9/12/01 5:05:19 PM
|
That's not that unusual.
Crash sites are usually protected.
The VFR corridor in NYC will get closed, at least for a while.
As to the flight plan, that's not likely to happen. Right now, all a flight plan is "I'm going from here to there and be there by this time" - if they don't hear different in an hour after that time, they start making phone calls. If they can't get hold of anybody, they start looking for wreckage.
I think you're really talking about flight following - but ATC can't provide that to everybody, all the time. And there are a lot of areas where FF just can't follow you.
I don't think GA will come out of this all that badly, really... it wasn't GA planes that were the problem.
Addison
|
Post #8,704
9/12/01 5:47:58 PM
|
I know what flight following is.
I was talking about VFR flight plans. See, if I say I'm gonna be here at time X and I don't show, then I can be subject to penalties, suspension, etc.
Now, if I've got my transponder on they could tell when I'm more than 5 miles off course if they were following me. Could be wrong but currently I think you have to request VFR flight following and its at their option. But if flight plans became mandatory along with transponders, (and, admittedly a hell of a lot more technology than exists today), then they could tell when I was somewhere I wasn't supposed to be.
>>I don't think GA will come out of this all that badly, really...
That's not an opinion shared by the half dozen or so old CFI's that hang around my airport. Being a newbie, maybe I'm under their influence too heavily ;-)
|
Post #8,720
9/12/01 6:37:45 PM
|
OK
Problem with requiring a flight plan - if Target A is 2 hours away, and I file a flight plan for Airport B 4 hours away.. plenty of time to be going the "wrong" way.
I was talking about VFR flight plans. See, if I say I'm gonna be here at time X and I don't show, then I can be subject to penalties, suspension, etc.
Check out what it takes to cross a ADIZ - that's really what you're talking about. I think you have to give them +- 10 minutes when you'll hit it - and you'd BETTER be right. Else you get to be escorted by armed fighters.
Now, if I've got my transponder on they could tell when I'm more than 5 miles off course if they were following me. Could be wrong but currently I think you have to request VFR flight following and its at their option.
Radar Advisories (Flight Following) is as workload permits (as you said). Big advantage to being under Flight Following is you're already in contact/cleared into D/C/B airspace if you're under it. But they don't always give advisories, I've had a couple planes near me, RDU didn't say anything.
But if flight plans became mandatory along with transponders, (and, admittedly a hell of a lot more technology than exists today), then they could tell when I was somewhere I wasn't supposed to be.
Yeah, but then they'd be more like IFR flight plans. I don't see that happening, not when Sport Pilot Certs are on the horizon.
That's not an opinion shared by the half dozen or so old CFI's that hang around my airport. Being a newbie, maybe I'm under their influence too heavily ;-)
They might not be wrong, but its not my impression. Especially GA out of uncontrolled airports. Nothing in GA had anything to do with this. Further, GA will get pushed more and more as the latest security craze makes it harder to get onto the plane, and people migrate to fractionals/own planes/owned planes.
(I don't mind things being harder. I mind them being MINDLESSLY harder.)
Addison
|
