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

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

[Yossarian]

Rush reports that a Cessna has been reported as crashing into (at least one) apartment complex in NYC Mannhattan's upper east side - on East 71st Street.

[nevergore]

Wow...that's a reach...I never stated anything like that....

BTW...if someone is going to fill a plane full of explosives and suicide crash it into a building....no regulation or restricted airspace will prevent it....

Remember the incursions into the most restricted airspace in the world right after 9/11 (Capital Hill/the White House), If the casual incursions were terrorists, these buildings would not be standing today.

[Arkinsaw]

Strange statement --- you are contemplating rules of engagement for Americans against Americans.

I suppose it would have been better to allow Flight 93 to smash into the Capitol to avoid shooting down some Americans. Thankfully they preferred to make that decision themselves without so much handwringing.

FreeRepublic amazes me sometimes, the general consensus seems to be that we are at war and that there are necessary actions to be taken....as long as those actions don't interfere with stuff WE like to do. Sorry, when we put a combat air patrol over a city like today...it needs to be more than just for show.

[Arkinsaw]

BTW...if someone is going to fill a plane full of explosives and suicide crash it into a building....no regulation or restricted airspace will prevent it....

But a version of this would. Phalanx

[NCC-1701]

"...The building it hit is surrounded by buildings...."

Isn't that the way it is in the New York area?

[Arkinsaw]

I suppose an instant death penalty would also keep people from bringing nail clippers on commercial flights, but we are just too "PC" to allow it.

Nail clippers on the flight are a little different than approaching well-known restricted airspace that contains likely terrorist targets of national importance. Yes, I am in favor of knocking down a plane that does that.

And if you do get those nail clippers on board...and approach the cockpit with them...I'd probably try to break your neck and probably wouldn't be alone.

[DejaJude]

I carry my passport all the time, though I rarely leave the country anymore. Its just better ID, especially when banking. Also, being NY, he may not have had a drivers license at all. Who needs to drive in Manhattan?

But he was from California. I lived there all my life until 1999, when I moved to AZ, I had to change my registration with ADOT. Are you telling me that NY does not require a change in registration for drivers?

[LeGrande]

So how big of a restricted area would you want around every major target in the US? 30 miles? I can cover 30 miles in 5 minutes, so obviously you need a bigger restricted area, say a 100 mile radius. That would provide a 15 minute period to prepare to shoot me down and give me fair warning, that might be enough. But that is exactly the same as banning GA aircraft.

Would you really want to put a couple of Phalanxes over a football stadium? I can just see your world now, each city would have a couple of hundred Phlanxes to guard everything that they think a terrorist in a 1200 lb. airplane might consider committing suicide on :) I wonder though what would be more dangerous, a mad terrorist in a tiny plane or a mad terrorist in control of a phalanx on top of the Sears Tower?

You didn't answer my other question though. Do you support banning the terrorists proven choice of weapon, the car?

[Pukin Dog]

No, I am saying he probably didnt drive at all in NY. Have you been to Manhattan? That is a crazy place to own a car.

[conservative in nyc]

I don't know where Lidle was living, but many of the Yankees live in New Jersey or Westchester and own cars. Jeter is known to drive up to the Stadium from his East Side Manhattan apartment. If you are near the FDR Drive in Manhattan, it's not that bad a drive to the Stadium, relatively speaking. If there's light traffic (as there would be when most Yankees need to get to the Stadium in the afternoon before rush hour), it can be done in 15-20 minutes. It might take you 45 minutes in really heavy traffic.

[nj_pilot]

at the risk of injecting some causal speculation into this lively discussion, have a look at this:

http://tinyurl.com/l89oy

The punchline is that a Cirrus aircraft departing Jamaica had a fuel leak in the right wing caused by the chafing described in the AD. The aircraft was on autopilot and the resulting imbalance fried the a/p servos. Plane went into a sharp left turn and pilot popped the chute.

http://www.aero-news.net/Community/DiscussTopic.cfm?TopicID=3764&Refresh=1

This seems like it might could be what happened here because:
1) the plane made a sharp left turn from a northeast heading to hit the north face of a building
2) there are news reports that pilot or pax reported fuel probs.

This is pure speculation on my part, but it makes sense of an otherwise inexplicable wreck.

Now back to bickering over the utility of those dangerous little conveyances and their incompetent pilots :-)

[Arkinsaw]

So how big of a restricted area would you want around every major target in the US? 30 miles?

If you plan on flying to New York, you are under ATC control. That apparently was not the case today. We should definitely know everything in the air over New York City and know who is flying it and who the passengers are. Need additional ATC? Fine hire them.

I can cover 30 miles in 5 minutes, so obviously you need a bigger restricted area, say a 100 mile radius. That would provide a 15 minute period to prepare to shoot me down and give me fair warning, that might be enough. But that is exactly the same as banning GA aircraft.

No, the range of a Phalanx is pretty much the terminal limit for me.

Would you really want to put a couple of Phalanxes over a football stadium?

Sure, I have no problem with an air defense system. Contrary to what you seem to think, I'd have it pointed OUT.

I can just see your world now, each city would have a couple of hundred Phlanxes to guard everything that they think a terrorist in a 1200 lb. airplane might consider committing suicide on

A little exaggeration on your part. Sears Tower...yes. Statue of Liberty...yes. US Capital...yes. White House...yes. Pentagon....yes. Empire State building...yes.

Our enemies like symbolic targets and air attack. I'd say you need to defend symbolic targets from air attacks. Call me crazy.

I wonder though what would be more dangerous, a mad terrorist in a tiny plane or a mad terrorist in control of a phalanx on top of the Sears Tower? I think the point is that its easier to restrict access to an air defense system than it is to restrict access to every small aircraft. Which are you in favor of? Restricting access to small aircraft, or restricting aircraft to stay away from likely terrorist targets...or nuttin as long as you get to enjoy your day?

You didn't answer my other question though. Do you support banning the terrorists proven choice of weapon, the car?

I am absolutely in favor of restricting the areas that a car can go. I would suggest shooting any driver that tries to drive up the Supreme Court steps or goes veering across the mall toward the Vietnam Memorial or the like. Call me crazy but I don't mind restricting access for cars around potential targets of symbolic or national importance. Airplanes...don't get a free pass in my mind. (p.s. we probably ought to restrict boat access to the side of dams also.)

[Arkinsaw]

You didn't answer my other question though. Do you support banning the terrorists proven choice of weapon, the car?

Sorry, forgot. Probably also need to restrict small boat access to the side of warships. I'd make it clearly known that small boats coming alongside one of our warships without authorization....shot.

[sarasota]

Guess I'm just truly shocked that the airspace is unrestricted. I thought otherwise and am just trying to wrap my mind around this in today's environment. It just doesn't make sense to me but, hey, I live in a very rural area and don't know any pilots.

[clamper1797]

20 Years ago !!!! Oct 22,1986 .... I thought it was around 5 years ago ... I remember it like it was yesterday

[RS]

"Sorry, when we put a combat air patrol over a city like today...it needs to be more than just for show."

I suppose you think that we should have grounded all aircraft today, or for that matter, why did we allow the airlines to resume flying at all ?

BTW - the CAP didn't interfere with anyones rights, or any of the stuff WE like to do.

[LeGrande]

If you plan on flying to New York, you are under ATC control. That apparently was not the case today. We should definitely know everything in the air over New York City and know who is flying it and who the passengers are. Need additional ATC? Fine hire them.

They had to have a working and functioning mode C transponder. So ATC knew exactly where they were, whether they were talking to them or not it wouldn't have made any difference at all, Zero, zip, nada.

A little exaggeration on your part. Sears Tower...yes. Statue of Liberty...yes. US Capital...yes. White House...yes. Pentagon....yes. Empire State building...yes.

Our enemies like symbolic targets and air attack. I'd say you need to defend symbolic targets from air attacks. Call me crazy.

So you don't think the Green Bay Packers playing the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make a great symbolic target? Or a nuclear plant? How about the Sky Dome. If you were the mayor of a city wouldn't you be pissed if you didn't qualify for protection? Do you honestly believe that it would end with 5 places being protected?

I am absolutely in favor of restricting the areas that a car can go. I would suggest shooting any driver that tries to drive up the Supreme Court steps or goes veering across the mall toward the Vietnam Memorial or the like. Call me crazy but I don't mind restricting access for cars around potential targets of symbolic or national importance. Airplanes...don't get a free pass in my mind. (p.s. we probably ought to restrict boat access to the side of dams also.)

Is there any freedom that you don't mind giving up for a little extra safety?

[Arkinsaw]

I suppose you think that we should have grounded all aircraft today, or for that matter, why did we allow the airlines to resume flying at all ?

As far as I know commercial aircraft were under ATC control and in their assigned airspace today, with cockpits secured, and passengers checked....unlike the planes we are talking about.....so I am not sure where that supposition came from since I had never mentioned it.

BTW - the CAP didn't interfere with anyones rights, or any of the stuff WE like to do.

My reference to the CAP was that it should not be for show, it should be for shooting down aircraft that make suspicious moves during alert. I am not sure what you point is.

My point is really that the terrorists notice those 3,400 violations of restricted airspace that nobody did much about except after the fact. They can read the newspaper and see where a small plane violated White House airspace accidentally and was not stopped. Sure the pilot got questioned later...but the terrorists don't intend to be around later to be questioned. I am sure the terrorists are scared of our restricted airspace regs given that.

Perhaps I would LIKE to do some things...like fly through the Gateway Arch...it would be cool. Yet if I think that I am entitled to do so because its something I would like to do and dammit I'm an American....I should be wrong and should not be surprised to end up dead.

[Texaggie79]

Ya'll just got YTMNDed. LOL, It is funny. http://freepfollies.ytmnd.com/

[RS]

"My reference to the CAP was that it should not be for show, it should be for shooting down aircraft that make suspicious moves during alert."

What makes you think it was for show ?


"My point is really that the terrorists notice those 3,400 violations of restricted airspace that nobody did much about except after the fact."

Your point appears to be that you would have been happier if WE had killed some wayward Americans to prove a point to the terrorists.

[Arkinsaw]

They had to have a working and functioning mode C transponder. So ATC knew exactly where they were, whether they were talking to them or not it wouldn't have made any difference at all, Zero, zip, nada.

Did they know who they were? Who the passenger was?

So you don't think the Green Bay Packers playing the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make a great symbolic target? Or a nuclear plant? How about the Sky Dome. If you were the mayor of a city wouldn't you be pissed if you didn't qualify for protection? Do you honestly believe that it would end with 5 places being protected?

I would say that 1 protected place is better than 0...5 protected places is better than 1.

Is there any freedom that you don't mind giving up for a little extra safety?

Have you stopped beating your wife? I stated that I favored restriction of totally unnecessary entertainment overflights of places like the Statue of Liberty, Gateway Arch, and other potential targets that are important to our nation. Your response is a fallacy that broadly insinuates that any efforts at security are by definition an assault on liberty.

It is not unreasonable to put up restrictions and to provide air defense for likely targets when your nation is at war. If you have a need to get somewhere, you can take a path other than over the Statue of Liberty or some other national icon. The only reason for circling the Statue of Liberty or other national icon is your personal entertainment. I think personal entertainment is one area probably worth giving up a little of for the security of your country...but thats just me I guess.