UPDATE: Aircraft hit building at 71st and York Ave on East Side of Manhattan

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | 10/11/06 | Rush Limbaugh

[Pukin Dog]

Narby, we have a whole new generation coming soon of small, light aircraft, which I believe will restore GA to unprecedented popularity.

But, I am also worried, because GA training frankly sucks. I hate the fact that someone with no IFR can get in an aircraft and take off. The amount of navigation training needed for licensing is a joke.

Were standards to rise, I would say relax the regs, but that wont happen because the community wouldn't stand for it, or pay for it. So what other options are available to try to keep people safe, but to tighten the regs?

What would be your solution?

[Arkinsaw]

But trying to restrict GA more than it is is simply silly. I can carry a lot more explosives in a Pinto than I can in a Cirrus and have a lot more penetrating power too.

You can put up a concrete barrier and stop a Pinto intent on blowing up something. You cannot put up a concrete barrier and stop an aircraft...the only way to do that are to put anti-air defenses and USE them...or restrict the airspace far enough out that you have a reaction time.

I cannot veer my Pinto off 5th Avenue and slam it into the Statue of Liberty within 30 seconds. Apparently this guy could have with his plane this afternoon and so could Osama bin Flyin. You either keep the planes far enough away....put up air defenses....or check the heck out of whoever takes off. I doubt you want the latter. But just ignoring it just cause you want to keep doing what you are doing because you like it is not a solution to the problem for a nation at war.

[U S Army EOD]

When I was at Bien Tui I saw two AF O6's go at it. One claimed he could run his head through the bar room wall. (He knew where the studs were and the weak spot on the wall and he did). The other guy didn't know where the studs were and couldn't get his head through the wall. We checked to see if he was still breathing and just left him lying on the bar room floor.

[RS]

"So you must prove that your right to fly over the Statue of Liberty is more important than the need for the restriction. "

Hogwash ...

"Prove" that my "right" to go to a SuperBowl game is more important then creating a very tempting target ...

Your restriction would mean nothing to a terrorist.


In this specific case ... the plane WAS in restricted space when he crashed --- the restriction did not stop him.

[Arkinsaw]

I'm worried that we're on the edge of losing the rights for citizens to fly their own airplanes.

Actually, if some jihadis manage to get hold of a few Cessnas and fly them into the Statue of Liberty, the Gateway Arch, Reunion Tower, and the Space Needle, then you will indeed lose your rights to fly. So dealing with it now rationally, rather than insisting on nothing..is probably wise.

[Arkinsaw]

In this specific case ... the plane WAS in restricted space when he crashed --- the restriction did not stop him.

You probably need to read my previous posts. I advocate actual defense of the country in addition to simple restrictions. Violate the airspace around the Statue of Liberty...get shredded.

[Tarkus2040]

Thanks for sharing your memories of Munson, sea.

[Moonman62]

Go back to 14:39 or a minute or two earlier. There's another aircraft heading in the opposite direction that disappears when it intersects with Lidle's plane, though it shows at 400ft.

[narby]

Your rights are not going to be terribly harmed by restricting joyriding around the Statue of Liberty. It is a target and wartime.

So make a rule that one cannot peek at the Statue of Liberty from an airplane. Great.

Guess what, terrorists don't obey rules. They violated the FARs the moment they took control of those aircraft and violated the speed limit rules below 10k feet. Didn't stop them, did it?

This is no different than the 2nd amendment. Once you ban law abiding citizens from flying around the statue of liberty, then only terrorists will fly near them. Silly airspace rules enacted becasue some people think the Statue of Liberty is some kind of holy site won't protect it.

Like restrictions on guns makes no one safer (only total elimination of all guns would do that) only the total elimination of the existence of private airplanes will remove any possibility that they could be used by terrorists.

By the way, even though I totally support what we're doing in Iraq, and wish we would get even tougher, repeating the mantra that "we're at war" is pretty lame. This is NOT 1942.

[Pukin Dog]

And they always wonder why AF is ridiculed outside of their local desert bar. I can see it like I was there. My crew and I would have offered a drink for every attempt, regardless of success or failure.

[Man50D]

Any terrorist event could happen, at any time. Restricting the rights of Americans for very low grade threats merely because people are ignorant on the capabilities of small aircraft would be stupid.

You wouldn't consider it stupid and a low grade threat if someone close to you died in such a terrorist attack. Prior to 9/11/01 the public never considered the possibility terrorists would live in this country for several years, train to fly commericial jetliners to fly into the World Trade Towers, The Pentagon and potentially The Capital building. The public would have considered anyone who proposed such a scenario as stupid just as you are doing now.

Come on, think. A four seat airplane about the weight of a Volkswagen isn't a 400 thousand lb 767 just because both of them have wings.

And that's coming from someone who doesn't realize it would be much easier for a lone terrorist to fly a small plane into a building than to obtain 20 ton truck collect enough barrels of fuel to fill the truck with enough power to bring down a 50 story building! Terrorists want spectacular events. Today's crash proves a even a small plane flown by one person can be spectacular and create as much devastation as any one terrorist could create.

Keep thinking.

[durasell]

By the way, even though I totally support what we're doing in Iraq, and wish we would get even tougher, repeating the mantra that "we're at war" is pretty lame. This is NOT 1942.




We're engaged in a different type of war. Different rules.

[Gradient Vector]

"Well, you either have the ability to feel empathy for those who've suffered from terrorism or you don't."

Who said I don't feel for those who die from terrorism, I'm just not afraid of it. Either way its just as tragic to die in car accident as in a terrorist act.

[narby]

So what other options are available to try to keep people safe, but to tighten the regs?

I'm hoping the new light airplane rules will help a lot. They're restricted to daylight, VFR, only two pax, and slow. That could make it cheaper to get into the sport, and if they want to go upwards to something as big as a Cirrus then that's another whole license.

This is a huge subject. I think a really big technology leap could make flying *dramatically* safer and easier. We have the technology literally in hand with GPS and high performance digital hardware. What we lack is software. Litteral software in the cockpit, software in the regs, and software between the ears with a new vision of how to use these tools much easier than the old steam guage rules we live with written in the 50's. The hardest of these to change is that software between the ears that's very hard to update with new ideas.

I'm and old grey pilot, but I'm also a computer geek and write navigation software for a GPS company. There are MUCH better ways than even the stuff in the glass cockpits.

[BARLOCK]

But, I am also worried, because GA training frankly sucks. I hate the fact that someone with no IFR can get in an aircraft and take off. The amount of navigation training needed for licensing is a joke.

I think it certainly is true that GA training sucks. I would make the supposition that most GA accidents are due to: 1) poor fuel planning, 2) weather, and 3) bad/no Take-Off & Landing Data, and thus easily avoidable. But I don't think more navigation training is the answer.

As a product of military flying training, the GA training in navigation seems wanting. On the other hand, 90% of the folks out there are using GPS, going navaid to navaid, or flying DR legs that probably aren't longer than 50 nm. Your VFR only GA pilot doesn't necessarily need all the navigation training, although it would certainly be useful.

[narby]

Violate the airspace around the Statue of Liberty...get shredded.

Yes, the statue of liberty is a holy site.

[durasell]

Yes, the statue of liberty is a holy site.




As a couple of the millions of immigrants who saw it for the first time.

[Pukin Dog]

I had no idea. Curious, what do you think of the 777 pit? You know I flew right seat before leaving Delta? Curious on what you would change? Are you familiar with current FMCs?

[Arkinsaw]

So make a rule that one cannot peek at the Statue of Liberty from an airplane. Great.

No, buy yourself a ticket on a licensed and secure tourist aircraft if you want a peek. You make emotional arguments here.

Guess what, terrorists don't obey rules. They violated the FARs the moment they took control of those aircraft and violated the speed limit rules below 10k feet. Didn't stop them, did it?

You continue not to notice that I am in favor of shooting them down if they enter restricted airspace over terrorist targets. I am for actually defending the sites, because its a war, not just enacting restrictions.

This is no different than the 2nd amendment. Once you ban law abiding citizens from flying around the statue of liberty, then only terrorists will fly near them.

You continue not to notice that I am in favor of shooting non-authorized aircraft that approach terrorist targets down. It is far different than the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment is a critical element of protecting citizens from its government. The ability to fly your own plane over the Statue of Liberty is not critical to much of anything except your personal entertainment.

Silly airspace rules enacted becasue some people think the Statue of Liberty is some kind of holy site won't protect it.

It is a holy site as far as I am concerned. We are at war you know, and it is a definite symbolic target for an enemy that loves symbolic targets. I am not in favor of making it easy for them.

Like restrictions on guns makes no one safer (only total elimination of all guns would do that) only the total elimination of the existence of private airplanes will remove any possibility that they could be used by terrorists.

Fallacious argument. Restricting and defending the airspace around the Statue of Liberty or other targets of national importance would indeed make them safer. Your analogy is flawed because guns are for personal defense and necessary for a people to protect against outrages. Flying over the Statue of Liberty is not.

By the way, even though I totally support what we're doing in Iraq, and wish we would get even tougher, repeating the mantra that "we're at war" is pretty lame. This is NOT 1942.

We are at war now, and we were at war in 1942. You wish it wasn't the same, or have been convinced that it isn't the same, but they are still out there and are making every effort to kill as many Americans as possible on our own soil. We will have another attack. It has been delayed by the President taking the fight to enemy territory and the efforts of our fighting men and women and by the efforts of our law enforcement. But they will attack here again.

[narby]

it would be much easier for a lone terrorist to fly a small plane into a building than to obtain 20 ton truck

Really? How many terrorist pilots are there? How many terrorist drivers are there?

The truck place is called "U-Haul", and they don't even require the two hour check-ride to rent.