Big guns. Little planes.

[MikeD]

Fair enough. I guess their RWR gear wouldn't be going off

Chaff is a WHOLE 'nother story. With the exception of certain, specific R areas over land, as well as certain types of chaff; its not legal to expend willy-nilly.

 

[RICHARD5]

Would take too long. Plus, they don't know what type of aircraft it is.

When they see something with the ground speed of a mule they can guess.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

It's not a difficult set of rules to follow. Rule number 1 is never squawk 1200. Rule 2 is always talk to Potomac Approach. Rule 3, monitor Guard.

The flight plan process for the SFRA is pretty simple - if you're IFR, it's almost transparent. VFR simply depends on what you're doing - the procedures for transiting vs. entry and exit are only slightly different. There are 1 or 2 exceptions if you're in the JYO maneuvering area, but that's really it. You can learn the whole thing in a 20 minute presentation on the FAA website.

I've been told that most of the busts are people who don't check NOTAMS. The DC SFRA is technically a TFR which has been long-standing. Also, from what I've been told, the Potomac controllers are really good to work with, although I've not had to because I usually exit the SFRA via the JYO procedures (no flight plan necessary unless you're doing pattern work, but inbound/outbound VFR just require specific squawk codes.)

Pay attention to what you're doing, stay outside the FRZ and you're fine. It's intimidating at first, but it's not that big a deal.

That being said - there are additional special procedures if you're flying in and out of the Maryland 3 airports - you need a TSA-issued PIN and a background check.

But to answer your question - no, it's not a big deal if you just pay attention.

tl;dr: boy I'm glad I'm air carrier.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Chaff is a WHOLE 'nother story. With the exception of certain, specific R areas over land, as well as certain types of chaff; its not legal to expend willy-nilly.

Forgive my relative ignorance on this topic, but could an air-dropped flare start a fire on the ground, too? The southland catches fire plenty without additional burning things being thrown at the ground.

 

[MikeD]

Forgive my relative ignorance on this topic, but could an air-dropped flare start a fire on the ground, too? The southland catches fire plenty without additional burning things being thrown at the ground.

It's a fair question. Not from altitude. The flares used for countering air-air missiles only burn for a few seconds each. These aren't the parachute flares for illumination that burn under a parachute for 5 minutes or so. That said, there are altitude restrictions for even using these very short-burn flares, usually above 800 AGL or so in areas where the flare remmanants may fall to earth.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

When they see something with the ground speed of a mule they can guess.

I can fly a Hawker around at 100 knots ground speed all day long

 

[highspeed]

Forgive my relative ignorance on this topic, but could an air-dropped flare start a fire on the ground, too? The southland catches fire plenty without additional burning things being thrown at the ground.

It's a fair question. Not from altitude. The flares used for countering air-air missiles only burn for a few seconds each. These aren't the parachute flares for illumination that burn under a parachute for 5 minutes or so. That said, there are altitude restrictions for even using these very short-burn flares, usually above 800 AGL or so in areas where the flare remmanants may fall to earth.

Some dropped flares set off a fire in the warren grove range in NJ some years back. Don't remember if it was dropped by the A-10s or the F-16s.

 

[darrenf]

Hey darrenf, remember that discussion?

Déjà vu for sure.

 

[Beep]

I can fly a Hawker around at 100 knots ground speed all day long

Hawkers aren't THAT fast!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

It's a fair question. Not from altitude. The flares used for countering air-air missiles only burn for a few seconds each. These aren't the parachute flares for illumination that burn under a parachute for 5 minutes or so. That said, there are altitude restrictions for even using these very short-burn flares, usually above 800 AGL or so in areas where the flare remmanants may fall to earth.

Unless you're over North Korea, of course.

 

[Boris Badenov]

What would the root of that criticism be? In other words, you think the performance that you see on that tape is substandard based on what? How many passes should it have taken?

If that is your assessment, then I'd say you are wrong.

I don't think it's substandard, but I think it might be sub-awesome, which was, to be fair, the claim made about the aircraft. Anyway, whatever. While I've read fairly extensively on ACM, I obviously have no formal training, nor were my disparaging remarks about the aircraft meant in deadly earnest. As I'm sure you've gathered, my only real contribution was meant to be disgust at the yee-hawing of our paramilitaries at killing some dude who didn't have a chance and wasn't armed. I will now return my purse to its holster and listen to what is, after all, a pretty interesting discussion.

 

[SteveCostello]

I don't think it's substandard, but I think it might be sub-awesome, which was, to be fair, the claim made about the aircraft. Anyway, whatever. While I've read fairly extensively on ACM, I obviously have no formal training, nor were my disparaging remarks about the aircraft meant in deadly earnest. As I'm sure you've gathered, my only real contribution was meant to be disgust at the yee-hawing of our paramilitaries at killing some dude who didn't have a chance and wasn't armed. I will now return my purse to its holster and listen to what is, after all, a pretty interesting discussion.

Hard to type this and not sound snarky, because... well... this is a forum, and everything sounds snarky. So read this without snark. It's a serious question.

What would you propose as an alternate solution? Drug runners use aircraft all the time. We can't just pull them over, or if they try to run, PIT them. There are probably serious issues with following them across borders (given the conversation that was heard in the video). I highly doubt that handing off chase responsibilities to other countries as the runners cross the border is realistic or would meet expectations. The only option, far as I can tell, is to shoot them down. Controversial? Sure. On the other hand... if they weren't running drugs in the first place, they wouldn't be in a position to get shot down. I'm presuming multiple attempts were made to contact the aircraft and order them to land, which they did not follow. Gotta say: seems like they had it coming.

 

[rframe]

Hard to type this and not sound snarky, because... well... this is a forum, and everything sounds snarky. So read this without snark. It's a serious question.

What would you propose as an alternate solution? Drug runners use aircraft all the time. We can't just pull them over, or if they try to run, PIT them. There are probably serious issues with following them across borders (given the conversation that was heard in the video). I highly doubt that handing off chase responsibilities to other countries as the runners cross the border is realistic or would meet expectations. The only option, far as I can tell, is to shoot them down. Controversial? Sure. On the other hand... if they weren't running drugs in the first place, they wouldn't be in a position to get shot down. I'm presuming multiple attempts were made to contact the aircraft and order them to land, which they did not follow. Gotta say: seems like they had it coming.

I think part of what Boris is saying is that basic rules of engagement or use of lethal force in law enforcement is authorized when someone represents an immediate threat to life. Is some pack mule (and likely a forced laborer) in an unarmed twin Cessna an immediate threat to anybody? Hardly. Is shooting down a twin Cessna full of dope doing anything significant to stop drug traffickers...no.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I suppose it would be a debate worth having (and I'd probably be on the other side, then, too) if it had happened within US airspace. But it didn't. We are (and have been for decades, AFAICT) sending "neither fish nor fowl" paramilitaries in to our client states to assist in the er "enforcement" (FORCE being the operative part of the word) of their domestic drug and customs policies, apparently because we're unable or unwilling to control our own borders. To my mind, that's not very American, and is pretty wildly and obviously in direct contravention to the wisdom of everyone from Washington to Eisenhower. Leaving aside the rather huge questions of our own ludicrous drug laws and the jurisdiction of our federal enforcement agencies, it seems fairly clear that the guy in the cessna wasn't violating any US Law by flying an airplane full of Evil Drugz thousands of miles away. So why are we borrowing, year after year, decade after decade, untold amounts of treasure we don't have and can't afford from China so we can kill some Peruvians for violating Pervuvian Law?

 

[SteveCostello]

Fair points, sir. I'm not educated nearly enough in the drug wars and the methods by which we are fighting the war to make any commentary on, so I'll pass on creating any further opinion until I see more information about all sides of the equation. It's a complex matter, for sure. Not unlike many other conflicts we are involved in, which are probably also mostly financed with money from abroad.