Somebody's Gonna Get Spanked! :)

[n4gix]

<!--StartFragment -->Somebody's gonna get spanked real hard!

I was monitoring KGYY tower yesterday and hear the duty controller calling, and calling and calling, trying to warn this fellow that quite obviously didn't "read the memo" (NOTAM)...

I went outside and watched the F-22 kick in the afterburners...

Big oops!

=======================
August 5, 2010 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- An official with NORAD said an F-22 fighter jet that was patrolling the airspace around Chicago intercepted an aircraft that came into a restricted area Thursday.

At 10:30 a.m. Chicago time, the fighter jet, which was already in the air over Gary, Ind., came across a multi-colored Cessna in air space that is part of a no-fly zone due to the president's visit to Chicago.
That small plane then exited the area, NORAD said, without radio communications.
An FAA spokeswoman said the small, private aircraft landed in DeKalb. No other information was released.
======================

 

[Ken Stallings]

It does not help AOPA's efforts to try to tamp down some of these TFR's when we have a few GA pilots who cannot discipline themselves to read the area NOTAMS before flying!

Yep, every time it happens, I get a big GRRRR on!

Ken

 

[Bjoern]

Look at it this way: The Raptor driver got a bit of action.

 

[Sundog]

So that was the jet I heard! I knew I'd heard something with afterburners. I hate when I can't see what it is with all of these trees.

Any info on the F-22 Bill? I mean, was it at the Boeing hanger, or just passing through?

 

[BOOM]

I'm assuming this is because The Pres. was in nearby Chicago? I live just outside O'Hare airport in the city and always know when Marine One is going to pass by.I can hear the fighter escort circling overhead .Pretty cool!!

***EDIT*** Sorry Bill,I didn't read your full post were you clearly state it was because of Obama visit to Chicago

 

[Ken Stallings]

Beyond revealing unprofessional pilots whom it seems never really learned what checking NOTAMS was all about in their private pilot training -- GRRRR times two on that one -- the TFR's for Presidential visits no longer serves a valid purpose in my humble view.

There really never was much of a significant threat anyway. So, I don't think they really ever served a valid purpose, especially the huge one permanently surrounding Washington DC. The focus should and must be on keeping the bad guys off the passenger manifest!

The nut job who flew his single-engine airplane into an IRS office on a derange kamakazi attack managed to kill one defensless and innocent human being -- an elderly man whom I think was retired from the military, and was no doubt merely earning a living to raise his family!

But I believe the very office he impacted sideways was renovated in brief time and put back into use. The murdered man was unfortunate enough to actually be working inside that office when the lunatic crashed into it.

The insane pilot also loaded extra fuel in the cockpit because he wanted more fire than full tanks of gas could provide! So he overgrossed his airplane by doing that.

Point is the damage to the building was light. This points out how insignficant a GA airplane is as an actual terror weapon. Compare what that airplane did with a true lunatic terrorist at the controls to what Tim McVeigh -- also a true lunatic terrorist -- did to the Alfred Murer federal building in OKC with a Ryder rental truck parked to the side!

Last I checked, rental truck agencies are not "grounded" when the President comes to town! So, see my point?

BTW: I'm not questioning for a second the need to protect the President. As a retired military officer that was one of my core duties since I served at the "pleasure of the President." I had the duty to protect my boss.

What I am saying is that protection comes in various forms and the Secret Service has limited resources and can best use those when they focus on the truly signficant threats. And GA is not one!

Cheers,

Ken

 

[kilo delta]

While a GA plane may not physically be capable of causing huge levels of devastation, if it is carrying ,for example, biological weapons then it certainly represents a serious threat.

 

[TeaSea]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here Kilo....

Bio's are exceptionally difficult to weaponize. The delivery system destroys them. You can't really spray them in an aerosol form either...that little scare in the early days after 9/11 was a bunch of hooey as any crop duster pilot could tell you. And you can't target a specific individual with bio weapons unless you expose them directly and personally. Can't really do that with an airplane. The U.S. Postal service is probably the best way to do that, and stamps are relatively cheap.

Most nations do not spend much time or effort on Bio weapons (beyond the moral imperative not to) for the simple reason that they are expensive and ineffective. The U.S. for example abandoned bio weapons at the height of the Cold War because of their impracticality, although it did maintain research on how to protect against agents.

Airplanes can spray chemical weapons. Problem is, any agent powerful enough to be effectively sprayed from an airplane would probably kill the pilot long before he had a chance to get to the objective area, this due to the specialized handling protocols and absolute no-fault criteria to use the agent. He'd also have to carry a lot of agent....a whole lot of agent, to be sure he had any impact (most GA planes couldn't carry it). Then there's the actually hitting your target factor. Lots of investment to target someone, easy to protect against (go inside).

Again, most nations do not maintain chemical weapons for the same reason as bio weapons, they are expensive and ineffective. The sole reason for maintaining Chem weapons is to retaliate in kind should they be used against you. Even this reason is increasingly weak. The U.S., as an example again, has abandoned the use of Chem weapons because of their impracticality. There are simply better ways of bringing stink down on an opponent.

Bio and chem agents have always been used for their "fear factor" more than their practical use. Even in WWI when they were used daily, they had little impact on the battlefield other than to cause casualties -- which more conventional munitions did more effectively and with a lot less investment. They are a threat against unprotected civilian populations, but the defense mechanisms against both are fairly simple once the threat is realized (we don't tell Hollywood that because it would ruin so many good movies). Also, The President is not part of the "unprotected" population.

I know we call these "weapons of mass effect", but in truth they are not. The effect is mostly perception.

Back to the Presidential TFR, in my opinion they do little to actually protect the president. They do however, answer a political and security imperative to APPEAR to protect the president, so they aren't going away. But don't kid yourself, the way to hit a target in the D.C. area or at a presidential location from the air is still to use a fuel filled tube liner-- Which a TFR will probably not protect against. If you really wanted to protect D.C. airspace, you'd shut down Reagan International, but I don't see that happening. Nor would I necessarily condone it.

I don't mean to imply that the TFR's are necessarily invalid, but rather that in practical terms, a GA airplane is simply not much of a threat and that factor alone would not justify the use of TFR's.

 

[Bone]

About 1.5 years ago the President decided he wanted to land at Atlanta Hartsfield airport (the worlds busiest airport) when he came to visit Atlanta. I ended up holding for thirty minutes with the other 100 or so airliners that were in the flow to ATL at the time, just so the pres had the airspace all to himself. That cost ALOT of $$$$, and wrecked the ops plan that afternoon, which cost even MORE $$$$ and inconvenienced 1000's of passengers. Seriously, he could have landed at Dobbins ARB, they have B-52 capable concrete and are almost as close to the downtown area.

 

[Ken Stallings]

While a GA plane may not physically be capable of causing huge levels of devastation, if it is carrying ,for example, biological weapons then it certainly represents a serious threat.

I notice you got a similar reply already that I'm about to provide.

But, truth is even that threat is highly overblown -- literally.

You see, to weaponize these bio's they have to be distibuted in concentrations and when you spray them into the air, they quickly evaporate and that neutralizes all but the most extreme concentrations, and then you have a problem getting them through the spray nozzles.

This is why crop dusters have to literally fly five to ten feet off the crops to be effective. Any higher and the spray disolves into the air. And if the terrorist is flying this low to the ground, you think a TFR is going to provide any benefit?

And those are using the best aerial application sprayers available. The FBI has good relations with the companies that sell these sprayers and the aircraft they come on. So, a terror group has to risk capture just trying to get their hands on the equipment and aircraft. So, again, just like at the passenger screening at the airport, that's the far superior method of defense.

Cheers,

Ken

 

[TeaSea]

About 1.5 years ago the President decided he wanted to land at Atlanta Hartsfield airport (the worlds busiest airport) when he came to visit Atlanta. I ended up holding for thirty minutes with the other 100 or so airliners that were in the flow to ATL at the time, just so the pres had the airspace all to himself. That cost ALOT of $$$$, and wrecked the ops plan that afternoon, which cost even MORE $$$$ and inconvenienced 1000's of passengers. Seriously, he could have landed at Dobbins ARB, they have B-52 capable concrete and are almost as close to the downtown area.

You make a very valid point here Bone, and I think this will become more of an issue as President Obama visits his home in Chicago and Hawaii. His impact there, whether he wants it or not, is significant due to the nature of the air space in these locations. In contrast, President Bush's regular visits to Crawford Texas, a largely rural area, had little impact on anyone.

It's important to remember that the president himself is not involved in this process, and frankly, is probably not even aware of the impact. I would not hold president Obama or his administration responsible for these decisions either way.

I do want to make a point on a positive side of the use of air assets that I feel president Obama was unjustly criticized for. He recently used Marine One to make a 6 mile trip (as the crow flies) to give a speech. While some would say that is the height of hypocrisy given that the speech was on "economizing"...I believe it was totally appropriate. His use of the aircraft made total sense given the potential impact if he had used the standard motorcade....which would have been a nightmare in D.C. traffic and cost the taxpayer a pretty penny. I would point out to the Forum, at the risk of making this a political discussion, that I absolutely disagree with El Presidente Obama (sic) on most of his policies....but this type of criticism is just silly.

 

[n4gix]

So that was the jet I heard! I knew I'd heard something with afterburners. I hate when I can't see what it is with all of these trees.

Any info on the F-22 Bill? I mean, was it at the Boeing hanger, or just passing through?

It and it's sisters landed at KGYY the day before, and were staged on the ANG ramp in the SW corner of the airport. They also used the ANG facilities for fueling, etc.