BB27 Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 All the crazy talk from the radical right was bound to influence someone on the edge. No surprise that he's in a state who's governor has talked about secession. Birthers, teabaggers, and the rest of the loons who think the gov't is taking away their freedom. If this domestic terrorist was a Muslim, they would be screaming about how weak Obama is on terrorism, but since he's a "normal" guy angry at the gov't and IRS, he'll be held up as an example of how the gov't can push people over the edge with its socialist agenda. Yeah I get it, it George Bush's fault. You lefties (aka Moonbats) crack me up!
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Small planes don't always need to file flight plans. Rarely, as I recall. Depending on the airspace, he doesn't even necessarily need to contact ATC. Regardless, it wasn't a plane. I didn't see any plane pieces in any of the pictures of the building. It must have been a cruise missile. If my intentions are to fly into a building and kill myself, I am not going to worry about procedures. What, the FAA can fine me?
VABills Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 If my intentions are to fly into a building and kill myself, I am not going to worry about procedures. What, the FAA can fine me? Of course. I am sure the unibomber used proper boxes and postage when he mailed things. Mcveigh properly parked his rent a van in Oklahoma city. I am also sure that suicide bomber follow all traffic laws before slamming into buildings.
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 Of course. I am sure the unibomber used proper boxes and postage when he mailed things. Mcveigh properly parked his rent a van in Oklahoma city. I am also sure that suicide bomber follow all traffic laws before slamming into buildings. I wouldn't be surprised if that were true about the Unabomber, and any smart car bomber is going to follow traffic laws so that he doesn't risk getting stopped. If you're that organized and have half a brain, you minimize the risk to your mission.
Fan in San Diego Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 I think small aircraft should be equiped with a wireless device that shuts off the motor automatically when the proper signal is recieved. Then put a beacon on buildings to be protected that transmit a mile or so. Then when a plane approaches the unsafe distance the plane shuts off and crashes. Problem solved. Next problem for me to solve please.
LeviF Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 I think small aircraft should be equiped with a wireless device that shuts off the motor automatically when the proper signal is recieved. Then put a beacon on buildings to be protected that transmit a mile or so. Then when a plane approaches the unsafe distance the plane shuts off and crashes. Problem solved. Next problem for me to solve please. Would never happen. The plane would just crash into another building or into pedestrians below.
Wacka Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 I think small aircraft should be equiped with a wireless device that shuts off the motor automatically when the proper signal is recieved. Then put a beacon on buildings to be protected that transmit a mile or so. Then when a plane approaches the unsafe distance the plane shuts off and crashes. Problem solved. Next problem for me to solve please. Your from SD. How is a plane supposed to land there if this was in effect? (There's a parking ramp just before the runway that looks like you are about 50 feet above it).
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 20, 2010 Posted February 20, 2010 I think small aircraft should be equiped with a wireless device that shuts off the motor automatically when the proper signal is recieved. Then put a beacon on buildings to be protected that transmit a mile or so. Then when a plane approaches the unsafe distance the plane shuts off and crashes. Problem solved. Next problem for me to solve please. Wouldn't work. Most planes have a glide ratio of 10-1. In other words, kill the engine at 5000 ft. and you can glide 50000 horizontal ft.
Fan in San Diego Posted February 21, 2010 Posted February 21, 2010 Would never happen. The plane would just crash into another building or into pedestrians below. Set up the distances of beacon signal to cutoff plane engine at a safe distance. Including whats below it. No idea is perfect but would prevent planes from crashing into target buildings.
Fan in San Diego Posted February 21, 2010 Posted February 21, 2010 Your from SD. How is a plane supposed to land there if this was in effect? (There's a parking ramp just before the runway that looks like you are about 50 feet above it). You couldn't use this idea right next to an airport obviously. There would be places you can't use this idea. Some places you can. Nothing is perfect.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2010 Posted February 21, 2010 Set up the distances of beacon signal to cutoff plane engine at a safe distance.Including whats below it. No idea is perfect but would prevent planes from crashing into target buildings. Did you read my post?
Fan in San Diego Posted February 21, 2010 Posted February 21, 2010 Did you read my post? Ya re-read it. That glide ratio is astonishingly far. OK another good idea to the trash heap.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2010 Posted February 21, 2010 Ya re-read it. That glide ratio is astonishingly far. OK another good idea to the trash heap. It doesn't seem all that far when the engine quits in the mountains, believe me.
Recommended Posts