Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
You're changing slightly, but allow me to introduce a few concepts.
First, despite civilian expectations, no country has complete control or knowledge of its skies. No country possesses the technology or resources to employ sufficient technologies to patrol the skies.
Second, DC airspace is far more secure than almost any other airspace in the world. To compare NY with DC is unfair.
Third, I have not reviewed the restricted airspace rules for Manhattan, but without such knowledge I believe I could take off tomorrow from an adjacent airspace and fly above Manhattan VFR. I also believe it is highly likely this would go unnoticed by NORAD.
It may be even more alarming that the plane issued a distress call and NORAD still didn't know about it.
Fourth, there are holes in radar. To avoid unnecessary disclosures, nothing more will be said.
Fifth, not all pieces are automatically linked within NORAD and it takes time for reports to get to various personnel.
Your expectations are unreasonable, but have it your way, blame Bush, he should have seen it coming and contacted the media.
|
How do you turn this into "blame Bush?" Are you seeing this issue as a pro-Bush/anti-Bush argument? If so, that explains some things. I am seeing it as a secure airspace v. non-secure airspace issue.
As I said before, I don't know of an airport on Manhattan that would service small planes like this. I can only conclude (and I am sure the media will soon tell us) that he took off from off of Manhattan and wandered into their airspace.
I don't think it is unfair to compare NY airspace with DC airspace. Sure, DC is more secure. But NY, aside from DC, is likely the most watched airspace in the world. I am surprised that the head of NORAD wasn't alerted to the possible breach of that airspace security until he watched the tv.
It may be even more alarming that the plane issued a distress signal and NORAD still didn't know about it.
Is it really that easy to fly an airplane into a building on Manhattan?