Posted on 05/13/2005 2:03:47 AM PDT by LukeSW
How fortunate we are that you are not in charge of anything to do with Homeland Security and the other involved agencies.
Then the author says this:
"The physics of the Cessna 150 make it an improbable terror weapon. Indeed, we have an incident to show us that a Cessna 150 is not much threat to the White House. In 1994, a suicidal nutball tried to kamikaze the steel-and-concrete-reinforced landmark, and left an unsightly black smear on the wall and a divot out of the lawn -- who are we looking out for with all this panic, the groundskeepers?"
Well, hell, what BETTER reason to use this as a weapons carrier then the fact it seems so inappropriate. This guy seems to think the way it will occur will be a huge jetliner with Osama's face on the lower wing surfaces and red arrows pointing to lettering that says "DEATH TO THE BIG SATAN-NUCLEAR BOMB HERE"
If it had been up to me that Cessna would have been nothing but match sticks and melted plastic after it failed to respond to the third radio call. The idiot instructor, who is SUPPOSED to be able to read a chart should have his ticket pulled permanently and be made to pay a HUGE fine.
True, a radio controlled "whatever" would have worked nicely..
I think the way Homeland Security handled it was just fine. In this day and age of suicide bombers, you simply can't assume that the pilot of the Cessna made a "mistake".
Your wife has good instincts. IMO it is very possible this was a security test, especially since the pilot was released and not charged with at least being ignorant of the law. The reaction to the alarm has to be instructive no matter whether the incident was planned or accidental.
Most any aircraft will take off with significantly more than the legal gross weight if the air is cool and/or a headwind at takeoff roll exists and/or the runway is long. The key is keeping the CG at close to the right place. No terrorist is going to be concerned with FAA legal gross. Alaska bush planes get away with outrageous loads at times.
Reposted FYI. Construction of original bomb shelter at White House (I don't have current information and it is probably classified):
Found a reference concerning the original construction of the bomb shelter. Definitely was designed to protect against blast overpressure from a air burst in the D.C. area, but a direct detonation of a thermonuclear device? Even with subsequent improvements, I don't think so. The occupants would be vaporized.
This double-layer of stub girders shown in the White House reconstruction (1948-52) appears to fit the description of the top of a double-layered bomb shelter:
"We stopped all building in Washington when we built this bomb shelter. We took all the concrete and steel there was in Washington. These walls have three feet of concrete and steel; the top has three feet of concrete and steel, a space of three feet, then another three feet of concrete and steel." I went in it. This motor is supposed to filter this air for 48 hours to take care of 200 people. -- Ted J. Sanders
"Over the years, there have been several additions made to the main building, including the west wing (1902), the east wing (1942), and a penthouse and a bomb shelter (1952). The west wing, which contains the president's oval office and the offices of his staff, is the center of activity at the White House. During Harry Truman's presidency, from Dec. 1948 to March 1952, the interior of the White House was rebuilt, and the outer walls were strengthened. Nevertheless, the exterior stone walls are the same ones that were first put in place when the White House was constructed two centuries ago." -- Department of the Interior, U.S. National Park Service via Infoplease.
131 posted on 05/12/2005 10:12:18 AM PDT by BearWash
http://eyeball.sabotage.org/prezsec/pict422.jpg
Maybe you and your brother ought to buy advanced navigation avionics for all the poor 150 pilots in the world.
Here's the rule, people:
DO NOT FLY OVER WASHINGTON DC
You want to change the rule? Good luck.
You want to break the rule? Good luck.
All else is wasted words. Yadda. Yadda. Yadda.
Maybe those poor pilots of the world can look up the NOTAMS (notices to airmen) themselves. NOTAM notification is FREE!
We can add to the list ...
DO NOT FLY OVER SENSITIVE MILITARY FACILITIES
... READ the bloody NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen)
I agree, there is no excuse for the incursion.
What on earth were they smoking?
I simply have to believe they were testing the waters re: gathering information on how we respond to a terrorist threat.
"Science Fiction?" "Several Hundred Pounds?"
Boy, glad we have so many "experts" around here.
Mayhaps you should go back and check my post #58?
And while you are at it, here are a few more sites to check out:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040213.htm
Yes, this may be nothing but "science fiction;" just one big "Global Conspiracy of Lies." Then on the other hand . . . . .
BTW, here are the stats on the 150:
Weight
empty : 501kg (1,100lb)
max : 757kg (1,670lb)
That leaves 570 lbs.
If one considers (depending on where it took of from) that 5 Gal of avgas (approx 30 lbs) would probably get it (@ 100 mph and a rate of fuel of approx 6/gal/hr) some 90 miles. And if you add the rate of a small person (approx 150 lbs) that leaves room (570 lbs - 180 lbs) for a 390 lb bomb--and that does not even take into account, stripping the plane.
VERY possible to get 500 lbs of high explosives on board--even if one discounts all other scenarios: biological, nuclear, dirty bomb.
Glad you and so many are nonchalant about this!
No one's nonchalant. I just think the action taken here, F16s and all, ended up being the exact right call.
I don't know. I haven't flown in ten years, but even without looking at fancy cockpit displays or NOTAMs I would know enough not to go near D.C.
Regardless of what mode would be used ot would be devistating to whatever area it effected
The Media is using this whole situtation as a backboard in which to try and knuckle The President into screwing up it just proves they are desperate and getting moreso every day !
>>I was flying with my brother in his Cessna Citation on our way to Cabo and the lcd screen in the instrument panel showed the boundaries of these areas extremely clearly.<<
Not really needed unless you are flying at 45,000 feet over unremarkable desert. I would think that under 10,000 feet over Washington DC the equipment would be unnecessary. A simple human brain would suffice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
