RE: Attack from Canada! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

servantforuse -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/6/2009 8:42:13 PM)

He could have played hell with many things between the Canadian border and where he finally landed..



understeer -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/6/2009 8:45:37 PM)

Yes there are procedures in place for civilian pilots to follow when being intercepted by another aircraft.  Generally, after an interception, you are guided to a point of landing, however it requires the cooperation of the intercepted pilot.

Regarding an F-16 pacing a C172... I'm not sure of the F-16's flight envelope, but a Cessna Skyhawk generally maxes out in level flight somewhere between 95 - 120 knots (110 - 140 mph roughly).  However, it's not difficult for a Cessna to operate in the 50 knot range which an F-16 most certainly cannot match.  A military helicopter is a completely different story.

Fuel load... while normal operation of a 172 would be a full fuel load, keep in mind that light aircraft are rather sensitive to weight and balance limitations.  Avgas weighs 6 lbs/gallon and a 172 holds about 40 gallons of fuel (240 lbs).  Some aircraft are only refueled prior to flight so the fuel load can be balanced for the payload and range of the planned flight while some are always topped off before or after a flight.  Aircraft fuel loads aren't as simple as pulling into the pump and filling the tanks all the way when you get close to E.  Also, if anyone's interested, a 172 has an endurance of somewhere between 4 and 5 hours of flight time on a full tank (on average and depending on the power settings used).

Now, I will say that on average, small aircraft are NOT a big security risk.  There are a lot of existing security measures limiting access to aircraft, particularly in the United States.  You do have a few bad apples, but by and large, pilots and airport operators place great value on maintaining security not only to prevent aviation related threats, but also to protect substantial investments in both the aircraft and airport properties.  And yes, a small aircraft can cause damage when crashed, but so can a Honda Civic.  There are far fewer restrictions on rental trucks than aircraft, and I'm certain that a 26 ft. Penske can cause a greater amount of damage than a 172.



servantforuse -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/6/2009 8:52:23 PM)

I can't say for sure but I think the original article sayiny the 172 had a range of almost 800 miles is wrong. Our Cessna 182 holds 72 gallons ( 37 in each wing ). We stop two times going from Madison, Wi. to Clearwater airpark in Florida..



understeer -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/6/2009 8:55:00 PM)

Yeah, I tend to not trust the mainstream media when it comes to anything aviation.  I haven't flown a 172 in awhile, but I seem to remember a 500 - 600 nautical mile, calm wind range.



MrRodgers -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 12:41:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Let's face it, it was only a Cessna - I'm watching CNN right now, and I can't quite believe the fuss they're making out of this as if it were a serious international incident. It's hilarious (and tragic at the same time).

You don't think the hysteria comes from the fact that the guy was born in Turkey, do you? Nah, that's impossible, right [8|] ?

OMG Turkey ?  If this had happened last year, he'd be headed straight for Gitmo.



sappatoti -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 6:19:09 AM)

Here's a continuation of the stolen plane story...

* CNN.com story on the pilot's arrest: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/07/stolen.plane.pilot/index.html



chiaThePet -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 6:26:26 AM)

Simmons Grocery And Hardware

"Best Jerky And Gatorade For Miles Around"

chia* (the pet)




maz123 -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 6:50:50 AM)

When confronting propellor aircraft military jets will fly 'figure eights' with one of the two jets being in firing position at all times. Civilian aircraft, in Australia at least but i think it is a worldwide standard, have two radio channels one for emergency communications with the nearest ground controller and one for emergency civil- military communications. the protocol on being challenged by a military aircraft is to fly straight and level until directed otherwise; then you have to confirm your movement before doing it. so if a military source directs you to bear 120 degrees, you have to say will bear 120 degrees before pushing the stick over. Unfortunately this is where things start to break down- all of this is supposed to be dealt with at flight school. my information comes from the biggest aviation magazine in australia- and they point out that on a recent survey of pilots at Essendon Airport near Melbourne nearly 60% had forgotten or had not been informed.
the problem for the military is that in any given year the number of incidents where a civilian aircraft enters restricted airspace, in Australia alone, numbers in the hundreds. if the military go around shooting every one of them down it would cause a bit of an uproar.



Kirata -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 9:30:18 AM)

Well, here's the wrapup from ABC News. The guy wanted to commit suicide and was hoping to be shot down. The story also mentions the estimated cost to the American taxpayer of $500,000 for his F-16 "Welcome Wagon" service. How ludicrous is that? The rule should be, if you violate US airspace and refuse to respond to radio and/or visual instructions from a military intercept, down you go.
 
K.
 
 
 
 
 



understeer -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 10:14:37 AM)

I disagree.  You can't account for every emergency contingency a pilot can face.  A pilot doesn't deserve to die simply because he's battling one or more other problems.  Besides, when you shoot down the airplane into someone's house, how do you explain it to them?



sappatoti -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 10:31:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
... The story also mentions the estimated cost to the American taxpayer of $500,000 for his F-16 "Welcome Wagon" service. How ludicrous is that? ...


Taking military planes up into the sky, for any reason, is going to cost the US taxpayer. How many times does the military do fly-overs at outdoor sporting and entertainment events? How many training missions do pilots go through with their equipment? All of them cost the taxpayer money, and some might even argue that fly-overs and training missions aren't as justifiable as tailing a wayward civilian plane. I'm purely guessing that when taken in aggregate with all of the non-combat missions flown, this mission wasn't out of line as far as costs are concerned.



Kirata -> RE: Attack from Canada! (4/7/2009 10:37:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: understeer

when you shoot down the airplane into someone's house, how do you explain it to them?

Well we would definitely have to shoot it down so it falls on someone's house, otherwise why bother?
 
K.
 
 



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125