Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Attack from Canada!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Attack from Canada! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/6/2009 8:42:13 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		He could have played hell with many things between the Canadian border and where he finally landed..

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/6/2009 8:45:37 PM   
understeer


Posts: 35
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/6/2009 8:52:23 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		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..

(in reply to understeer)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/6/2009 8:55:00 PM   
understeer


Posts: 35
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 12:41:12 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
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  ?

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

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 6:19:09 AM   
sappatoti


Posts: 14844
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: the edge of darkness...
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Never mind the man on the edge of the darkness... he means no harm...

"Community, Identity, Stability." ~ A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, 1932

If you don't like my attitude, QUIT TALKING TO ME!

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 6:26:26 AM   
chiaThePet


Posts: 2694
Joined: 2/4/2007
Status: offline 		Simmons Grocery And Hardware

"Best Jerky And Gatorade For Miles Around"

chia* (the pet)



_____________________________

Love is a many splendid sting.

You can stick me in the corner, but I'll probably just end up coloring on the walls.

(in reply to sappatoti)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 6:50:50 AM   
maz123


Posts: 7
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 9:30:18 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline 		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.
 
 
 
 
 

< Message edited by Kirata -- 4/7/2009 9:31:56 AM >

(in reply to maz123)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 10:14:37 AM   
understeer


Posts: 35
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 10:31:35 AM   
sappatoti


Posts: 14844
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: the edge of darkness...
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by sappatoti -- 4/7/2009 10:32:11 AM >

_____________________________

Never mind the man on the edge of the darkness... he means no harm...

"Community, Identity, Stability." ~ A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, 1932

If you don't like my attitude, QUIT TALKING TO ME!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Attack from Canada! - 4/7/2009 10:37:19 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.
 
 

(in reply to understeer)
Profile   Post #: 32
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Attack from Canada! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.078