Fighter Jets Force Down a Cessna

Chief Captain said:
He flew with somebody who had serious concerns about his ability as a pilot as well as his difficulty with English. It was recommended that he not fly the aircraft, and he chose to ignore the recommendation.
Click to expand...
Right, but typically that's cause for an FAA beatdown. Not F-16s.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
THe problem is that the FAA doesn't define reckeless and careless operation of an aircraft. So they make it up as they go along.
Click to expand...

True, true, truuuUuUUuuuuUUuUe!

That's something they always tack on when they want to put the screws to someone.
 
Roger said:
Right, but typically that's cause for an FAA beatdown. Not F-16s.
Click to expand...

He did get an FAA beatdown eventually. I thought sending fighters was a bit excessive too, but apparently the guy who called figured this pilot was a sufficient hazard to ask them to get him out of the sky asap.
 
Chief Captain said:
He flew with somebody who had serious concerns about his ability as a pilot as well as his difficulty with English. It was recommended that he not fly the aircraft, and he chose to ignore the recommendation.
Click to expand...

But that's his choice as pilot in command. My question is if his English was so bad, then how did he get a ticket in the first place?

Even if it was as bad my French, scrambling fighters to intercept him? You've got to be kidding me.
 
tonyw said:
But that's his choice as pilot in command. My question is if his English was so bad, then how did he get a ticket in the first place?

Even if it was as bad my French, scrambling fighters to intercept him? You've got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...

If his English is that bad then the person that gave him his license ought to be fired...
 
Chief Captain said:
He was doing some sort of flight review.
Click to expand...
Well if his biennial was not current and the cfi didnt sign off then he busted a reg.
If it was, and he was getting it a little early, I don't see the legal problem. I could be wrong. But based on the info here it might have been a peeing contest and some cfis are a little big for their britches. Could be the other way around though.

I was barely out of currency, and needed three approaches. He made some comment on how high his standards IPC checks were. I had to put the time out sign, and said I was looking for 3 approaches, not a check ride. He said well I don't have to sign your log books. I told him if he didn't know the regs we could talk to the boss and that would be it. He seemed to "remember" the regs then and had a change of attitude.
 
granlistillo said:
He made some comment on how high his standards IPC checks were. I had to put the time out sign, and said I was looking for 3 approaches, not a check ride. He said well I don't have to sign your log books. I told him if he didn't know the regs we could talk to the boss and that would be it. He seemed to "remember" the regs then and had a change of attitude.
Click to expand...

Well done. Good thing YOU knew the regs. It's good when the CFI tries to get more than bare PTS minimums from the student, but if you perform to PTS, he has no right to say you're not good enough.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/08/unruly.passenger/index.html

F-16s sent airborne again for an "unruly passenger" who refused to leave the restroom.

Ok, now this crap is getting out of hand. Seriously, what the hell are F-16s going to accomplish being launched to escort an airliner with an unruly passenger? And where does this end? So some pax removes his seat belt when the seat belt sign is on, and scramble the alert fighters now?

The post-9/11 idiocy continues. Just one more item to add to the list of why the war on terror has been lost, and we're been lost as a nation, since 9/12/01. Ever since that day, every reaction to nearly anything airline/airport security related has been overkill.

If the military really wants to put their aircraft into a pseudo law-enforcement assistance function, then how bout some A-10s to help the US Border Patrol along the US/Mexico border. I know firsthand we're often outgunned, and definitely outmanned out here.
 
MikeD said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/08/unruly.passenger/index.html

F-16s sent airborne again for an "unruly passenger" who refused to leave the restroom.

Ok, now this crap is getting out of hand. Seriously, what the hell are F-16s going to accomplish being launched to escort an airliner with an unruly passenger? And where does this end? So some pax removes his seat belt when the seat belt sign is on, and scramble the alert fighters now?

The post-9/11 idiocy continues. Just one more item to add to the list of why the war on terror has been lost, and we're been lost as a nation, since 9/12/01. Ever since that day, every reaction to nearly anything airline/airport security related has been overkill.

If the military really wants to put their aircraft into a pseudo law-enforcement assistance function, then how bout some A-10s to help the US Border Patrol along the US/Mexico border. I know firsthand we're often outgunned, and definitely outmanned out here.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
MikeD said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/08/unruly.passenger/index.html

F-16s sent airborne again for an "unruly passenger" who refused to leave the restroom.

Ok, now this crap is getting out of hand. Seriously, what the hell are F-16s going to accomplish being launched to escort an airliner with an unruly passenger? And where does this end? So some pax removes his seat belt when the seat belt sign is on, and scramble the alert fighters now?

The post-9/11 idiocy continues. Just one more item to add to the list of why the war on terror has been lost, and we're been lost as a nation, since 9/12/01. Ever since that day, every reaction to nearly anything airline/airport security related has been overkill.

If the military really wants to put their aircraft into a pseudo law-enforcement assistance function, then how bout some A-10s to help the US Border Patrol along the US/Mexico border. I know firsthand we're often outgunned, and definitely outmanned out here.
Click to expand...

I guess it makes politicians happy, but what is a fighter escort going to do other than shoot down the plane if it appears to have been taken over? It's not like the airliner needs to be protected from enemy aircraft. Are we really at the point where every little thing triggers the, "Mr President, we may have to kill 200 civilians," switch?

If only we hadn't retired the F-117, at least then we could get rid of Lawman Steven Seagal...
 
Steven Seagal was a joke before he was a joke.

I don't get the appeal of that guy. My Calico's got better acting skillz and is probably tougher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top