VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Activity Specific > Trip Write-ups
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:31 PM
KatieB's Avatar
KatieB KatieB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stilwell, KS
Posts: 1,096
Angry

All they're doing is encouraging people to turn off their transponders. Where's the safety in that??
__________________
Katie Bosman
RV-3B sold, but flying!
Next project: ???
Builders gonna build...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2010, 09:09 PM
RWoodard's Avatar
RWoodard RWoodard is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Brighton, Colorado
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
All they're doing is encouraging people to turn off their transponders. Where's the safety in that??
Actually quite the contrary for me. Now I can't wait to install a transponder and go for a little flight...

I can see the headlines now... 950 lb. (max gross) aircraft capable of carrying almost 15 gallons of fuel with only a single person aboard flagrantly painted to resemble a World War II fighter aircraft threatens the safety of farmland on the eastern planes of Colorado... Film at eleven.
__________________
Rod Woodard
Brighton, Colorado (CO12)
RV-3 N87CT (Thanks Chuck!)
Glasair 1RG N388DM
RV-3 N99RV sold 01/2000
F1 MkIII empennage?arrived 08/22/2018--collecting dust
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-29-2010, 09:14 PM
DanH's Avatar
DanH DanH is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KatieB View Post
All they're doing is encouraging people to turn off their transponders. Where's the safety in that??
They already have a Big Brother rule for that.....91.215(c):

(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

The underlining is mine. I'd like to know if it was added to the FAR in recent times.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-29-2010, 10:37 PM
DCat22's Avatar
DCat22 DCat22 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH View Post
The underlining is mine. I'd like to know if it was added to the FAR in recent times.
91.215 was created in July 1992 according to the FAA database...revised in 2001, but section (c) is the same in either case.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...A?OpenDocument
__________________
-Rick Greer, VAF #2492
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-30-2010, 06:44 AM
BlndRvtr BlndRvtr is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NE Where
Posts: 339
Default

Has anyone informed EAA and AOPA of these tracking incidents? I'd be curious as to their thoughts about such activity.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-30-2010, 07:45 AM
L'Avion's Avatar
L'Avion L'Avion is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 159
Default VFR Flight Following?

How could the use of VFR Flight Following affected this scenario?

http://www.vansairforce.net/articles...tFollowing.pdf

Barney, in Memphis
RV-4 flying
RV-3 flying

Last edited by L'Avion : 09-30-2010 at 07:47 AM. Reason: add signature
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-30-2010, 09:12 AM
Danny7 Danny7 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: central oregon
Posts: 1,089
Default

couple of random thoughts maybe surprisingly anti current thread direction:

They might not have spent any extra money on the whole episode. everyone involved may already be on salary/ contract to provide certain services, of which this tracking episode fell under.

they might not be doing any better at moving traffic around but this shows a good example of government trying to do something. they laid out a plan (look out for erratic possibly bad people flying dangerous objects through the air), they started monitoring to try and find people, and they followed up on what looked on screen like a possible threat. if we all think its ridiculous maybe its because we know something they don't know (little airplanes equal pretty small bomb-plane). however, by the radar scope they might not be able to tell the size of the plane so it was a good excuse to do a polite investigation. the size of the plane might not be such a threat definer, it might be the speed. there are other things they need to consider besides suicide airplane bombers, such as a guy with a fast airplane trying to collide with either an airplane flying with a VIP or hitting a VIP on the ground. with speed its harder to stop something like that


i'd much rather have a polite policeman coming out to the plane and asking for the papers than having a couple cars of swat showing up, and we all know any law enforcement officer can ask for those papers.

sorry this happened to the OP, but i don't think its that big a deal with the current laws. i don't agree that any LEO can ask for papers at any time but thats another thread.
__________________
nothing special here...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-30-2010, 10:59 AM
nomocom's Avatar
nomocom nomocom is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Caldwell ID
Posts: 253
Default Hmm. reminded me I want to catch "Please remove your shoes" (movie)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny7 View Post
couple of random thoughts maybe surprisingly anti current thread direction:

They might not have spent any extra money on the whole episode. everyone involved may already be on salary/ contract to provide certain services, of which this tracking episode fell under.

they might not be doing any better at moving traffic around but this shows a good example of government trying to do something. they laid out a plan (look out for erratic possibly bad people flying dangerous objects through the air), they started monitoring to try and find people, and they followed up on what looked on screen like a possible threat. if we all think its ridiculous maybe its because we know something they don't know (little airplanes equal pretty small bomb-plane). however, by the radar scope they might not be able to tell the size of the plane so it was a good excuse to do a polite investigation. the size of the plane might not be such a threat definer, it might be the speed. there are other things they need to consider besides suicide airplane bombers, such as a guy with a fast airplane trying to collide with either an airplane flying with a VIP or hitting a VIP on the ground. with speed its harder to stop something like that


i'd much rather have a polite policeman coming out to the plane and asking for the papers than having a couple cars of swat showing up, and we all know any law enforcement officer can ask for those papers.

sorry this happened to the OP, but i don't think its that big a deal with the current laws. i don't agree that any LEO can ask for papers at any time but thats another thread.
I appreciate another perspective and I recognize that it is good that the already retained folks are doing something..... but we have to talk about opportunity cost here. Once the police talked to the folks at the first FBO and found out there was nothing unusual, shouldn't Homeland security moved on to other activities?

Opportunity cost specifically in the sense that every low value or low probability investigation that eats up resources takes away resources from those activities that should be closely monitored. If they are sitting around on their thumbs, looking for things to do, maybe DHS is overstaffed, no?

heres a link to a docu-movie "Please remove your shoes".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTJ9v1s1Oak

I particulary like the term "security theater" in the teaser.
I haven't seen the movie, but after watching how security has evolved following 9/11 my sentiments are similar. While I think we are making well intentioned efforts, at some level I think the inconvenience imposed outweighs the return. Trying to make aviation safe is pandora's box for a society such as ours that values personal iiberty. I don't have all the answers, but sure seem odd that in this case it went as far as it did.

I suppose me in that situation, I'd push to find out what were the grounds for the investigation. At the border crossing, rules are different but approached by a police officer inside the good ole USA... I'm going to politely request I be told what this is about before going ahead with sharing documents.
__________________
Stan
1990 RV-3 (now apart, upgrades in the works)
1959 C172 O-360
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-30-2010, 11:24 AM
RVbySDI's Avatar
RVbySDI RVbySDI is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Tuttle, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny7 View Post
i'd much rather have a polite policeman coming out to the plane and asking for the papers than having a couple cars of swat showing up, and we all know any law enforcement officer can ask for those papers.

sorry this happened to the OP, but i don't think its that big a deal with the current laws. i don't agree that any LEO can ask for papers at any time but thats another thread.
I do not wish to have to put up with Either scenario. If there was overwhelming evidence that some type of crime had been committed I might be inclined to go along with what you are saying.

However, just to stop a normal everyday law abiding citizen because some government entity observed some sporadic unusual behavior on a radar screen does not constitute "probable cause" to disregard anyone's CIVIL LIBERTIES!

Remember the phrase in our Declaration of Independence that refers to our rights for "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"? Regardless of whether it was a polite police officer coming up to question me or a full blown SWAT attack. They are both affronts upon our CIVIL LIBERTIES.

This is what we have lost since 9/11. All in the name of security! I, for one, do not value my Security over my LIBERTY! What ever happened to "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" Does that battle cry not ring true in America's heart and soul any more?

Of course, a topic for another thread, but perhaps it does not ring true because our students no longer learn about that part of our American History or the true meaning of "America, Sweet Land of Liberty that I love!"
__________________
RVBYSDI
Steve
RV9A
https://rvwings.com

Live Long And Prosper! 🖖🏻

Last edited by RVbySDI : 09-30-2010 at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-30-2010, 12:00 PM
N8RV's Avatar
N8RV N8RV is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
Posts: 1,186
Default

[quote=RVbySDI;471902]...Remember the phrase in our Constitution that refers to our rights for "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"? [quote]

Actually, Steve, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Just correcting a common misconception, no offense intended. I appreciate your patriotic passion.
__________________
Don McNamara
Peoria, AZ

Builder: RV-8 "Smokey"

Last edited by N8RV : 09-30-2010 at 12:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.