So which is more troubling...

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by John M. Haddow

I was dining at an expensive restaurant with Department of Agriculture
Secretary Mike Johanns yesterday when the crash occured. There is no need for me to name the restaurant, because none of you unsuccessful cretins will be familiar with it, and it would be a waste of my time to try and explain what penne scallops are. But the conversation quickly turned to those of us who understand the fundamentals of aviation safety, such as myself, who flew fighter planes with Elder Dunn during the war. I can tell you with utmost, firsthand authority that this thread is jumbled with unintelligent garbage by bores who pretend to understand topics that are foreign to they and their inactive mothers and pot-smoking siblings.

Which of my siblings is it that smokes pot? I have always suspected my sister. I mwan seriously the "I was just holding it for a friend" story only goes so far.

[Archaea]

In fairness to hoya, I imagine many citizens ask the same question, innocently enough. If hoya were to be perfectly candid, hoya might admit a visceral dislike for Bush that anything he can critisize relative to the Administration, makes him look at a matter cynically. There is much to be cynical about.

However, hoya's cynicism centers on the mistaken belief that government can cure all problems.

I imagine significant numbers of citizens believe NORAD has the technical capacity to know, and then to inform its chief automatically and immediately, that X number of planes, private and commercial, are straying into dangerous civilian areas.

If people were aware of the daily number of near misses, they would be horrified.

And interestingly, easterners believe, because it's New York City, everybody should be concerned. BTW, did anybody see the blurb on CB which stated that the flight instructer was an LDS man from Walnut Creek California, leaving a wife and children?

To answer hoya's question, it is NOT feasible to police the skies as hoya might believe.

And it is not feasible for the chief to be advised of every mishap instantly, especially given verification procedures and chain of command. So I actually am glad the chief keeps informed through the public commerical sites as well as his government sources, as I believe in many instances, commercial works better and more quickly than governmental.

[creekster]

Hoya you appreantly want to retreat to the very narrow issue you raised originally, as oppsoed to discuss and defend the implications and premises raised and suggested by your question and comments. Fine.

In answer to your question, it is more troubling that a plane flew into a building.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Hoya you appreantly want to retreat to the very narrow issue you raised originally, as oppsoed to discuss and defend the implications and premises raised and suggested by your question and comments. Fine.

In answer to your question, it is more troubling that a plane flew into a building.

If by retreat you mean only address the issues I asserted as opposed to the issues you claim I asserted, then yes, I would rather do that.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In fairness to hoya, I imagine many citizens ask the same question, innocently enough. If hoya were to be perfectly candid, hoya might admit a visceral dislike for Bush that anything he can critisize relative to the Administration, makes him look at a matter cynically. There is much to be cynical about.

However, hoya's cynicism centers on the mistaken belief that government can cure all problems.

I imagine significant numbers of citizens believe NORAD has the technical capacity to know, and then to inform its chief automatically and immediately, that X number of planes, private and commercial, are straying into dangerous civilian areas.

If people were aware of the daily number of near misses, they would be horrified.

And interestingly, easterners believe, because it's New York City, everybody should be concerned. BTW, did anybody see the blurb on CB which stated that the flight instructer was an LDS man from Walnut Creek California, leaving a wife and children?

To answer hoya's question, it is NOT feasible to police the skies as hoya might believe.

And it is not feasible for the chief to be advised of every mishap instantly, especially given verification procedures and chain of command. So I actually am glad the chief keeps informed through the public commerical sites as well as his government sources, as I believe in many instances, commercial works better and more quickly than governmental.

I fail to see what this matter has to do with Bush. You continue to treat this issue as if it is a pro-Bush/anti-Bush issue. Could you explain how that is the case? I also don't know where I have ever claimed that the government can cure "all" problems. I have raised a specific concern about the government's lack of ability to protect the economic capital of the world. That is hardly tantamount to saying all problems should be fixed by the government. Of course you already knew that, but, straight from the Creekster school of thought, believed you could build up a straw man and then act upset that I am not addressing your straw man.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If by retreat you mean only address the issues I asserted as opposed to the issues you claim I asserted, then yes, I would rather do that.

You mena like this?

I expect them to be aware of airplanes flying at 500 feet over Manhattan, yes. Once they find that airplane (whose flight plan could NOT have included flying at 500 feet over Manhattan) going outside of their flight plan, I would expect them to immediately respond rather than wait for crash reports on tv.

Of course, this was before you learned that many private craft don't file flight plans.

Or perhpas you mean this comment?

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?

I don't think I misrepresented your position at all. It is simply neither unreasonable nor unacceptable that the NORAD chief was unaware of a plane in distress near manhattan, nor that he learned of the collision from CNN. The type of security you are proposing doesn't exist (the protection you believe is in place for DC is mythical) and can't exist absent restrictions on freedoms and commerce that you, of all people, should find unacceptable.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

. . . but, straight from the Creekster school of thought,

Wow, now I have a school of thought? Maybe now my wife will realize that all the time I waste, er, spend on CG is worth it.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In fairness to hoya, I imagine many citizens ask the same question, innocently enough. If hoya were to be perfectly candid, hoya might admit a visceral dislike for Bush that anything he can critisize relative to the Administration, makes him look at a matter cynically. There is much to be cynical about.

However, hoya's cynicism centers on the mistaken belief that government can cure all problems.

I imagine significant numbers of citizens believe NORAD has the technical capacity to know, and then to inform its chief automatically and immediately, that X number of planes, private and commercial, are straying into dangerous civilian areas.

If people were aware of the daily number of near misses, they would be horrified.

And interestingly, easterners believe, because it's New York City, everybody should be concerned. BTW, did anybody see the blurb on CB which stated that the flight instructer was an LDS man from Walnut Creek California, leaving a wife and children?

To answer hoya's question, it is NOT feasible to police the skies as hoya might believe.

And it is not feasible for the chief to be advised of every mishap instantly, especially given verification procedures and chain of command. So I actually am glad the chief keeps informed through the public commerical sites as well as his government sources, as I believe in many instances, commercial works better and more quickly than governmental.

Well said. People would live in terror if they knew the threats that we were constantly faced with. I cannot count the number of times my father working Anti-terrorism was sent to LAX for potential threats.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I fail to see what this matter has to do with Bush. You continue to treat this issue as if it is a pro-Bush/anti-Bush issue. Could you explain how that is the case? I also don't know where I have ever claimed that the government can cure "all" problems. I have raised a specific concern about the government's lack of ability to protect the economic capital of the world. That is hardly tantamount to saying all problems should be fixed by the government. Of course you already knew that, but, straight from the Creekster school of thought, believed you could build up a straw man and then act upset that I am not addressing your straw man.

You do believe that government is more powerful than it is and that government can solve more problems than it can. Obviously setting up a strawman draws your attention.

I do not believe we can protect our financial capitol. It is more than government could ever do, given the resources necessary and we do not possess the requisite technology.

For example what the jets going to do, assuming their weapons will accurately target a low tech prop plane? Should they fire knowing if they miss, their missles will explode upon a neighboring building?

Why should NORAD become immediately aware of all planes over Manhattan? Are you stating it should become no flyzone?

Are you a pilot?

Have you ever started flight school?

Have you participated in the military? If so, you must be aware of the chain of command.

Are you aware of the intricacies of radar?

Why do you believe the myth that we are capable of knowing what's out there, or that notices should travel up our chain of command instantaneously?

[Cali Coug]

As to the first quote, you extrapoltated from that that I was arguing that we should have secure airspace everywhere in the country (and then invented a mysterious claim that there is a central database holding information for every flight in the country). So yes, that is a perfect example of what I am saying. No, I was not aware the plane did not need a flight plan. No, that does not change the fact that the plane should have been detected flying at under 500 feet over Manhattan (which almost ensures it will hit something), nor that the plane should have been even more detectable given the distress signal it issued.


As to the second quote, it wasn't a plane in distress "near" Manhattan. It was a plane in distress over Manhattan flying at under 500 feet. If Norad can't recognize that as being a threat, we are in real trouble (meaning my second option for reasons to be concerned would be the more troubling aspect). Ironically, your second quote directly counters your assertions that I am attempting to claim we should have nationwide secure airspace.