News Pilot Myrtle Rose prompts alert during Obama visit

[Notebook]

Call me old fashioned, but I'm right behind her:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428377

N.

 

[garyw]

I'm not. This quote sums it up for me:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad), which scrambled the two warplanes, said there was no excuse for not knowing about the airspace restrictions.

and

She also said she did not have her radio on

It is the pilots responsibility for knowing about restrictions. She failed that and so she shouldn't have the license and not having her radio on is just dangerous.

 

[Urwumpe]

Exactly, Gary is right there, she violated many important air traffic rules there, especially the "you should always have your radio on" rule.

 

[Notebook]

You are both correct, in the UK it would be a failure to recognise a NOTAM , and we would be shot at dawn...

I'm now not right behind her.

N.

 

[Hielor]

Normally there is nothing requiring you to even have a radio as long as you're outside controlled airspace, so that in itself isn't really against regulations--but having a radio and not having it on is just dumb. "Dumb" seems to be par for the course for her, though:

The widow told US media she thought the warplanes were just admiring her plane.

Her excuse that her computer wasn't working properly so she couldn't check the NOTAMs is stupid--there's a phone number you can call to get a flight briefing.

Additionally, there are instructions for what to do in the event you're intercepted by military aircraft printed on the front of every US sectional chart, so if she hadn't turned on her radio by then, not turning it on at that point was an additional violation.

IANAL, but the FAA can get her for:
- Busting an active presidential TFR (FAR 91.141)
- Not being familiar with "all available information concerning the flight" (FAR 91.103)
- Not following correct interception procedures (AIM 5-6-2)
- Careless or reckless operation of an aircraft (because the FAA gets everyone on this one) (FAR 91.13)

She may just get let off with a warning, like the folks here in Seattle a year or so ago did:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012647005_sonicbooms18m.html
For that one, F-15s were scrambled from Portland and went supersonic to get to the plane, but it had still landed by the time they got there

Given her cavalier attitude toward the rules, though, I don't think she should be behind the stick of anything for at least a year. From her comments she obviously has enough air in her head that she should be able to continue flying without needing a plane.

 

[Urwumpe]

AFAIR, not having your radio on is even outside controlled airspace a very stupid idea. Maybe not completely illegal, but a good reason to question your sanity. How to communicate with you then? as you can see, the suddenly appearing fighter jets are not understood in every language.


But I think, she should go away with a warning, if she didn't do anything like that in the past decades of flying. Her explanation might be a bit stupid and she would have been better off, if she would have kept her lips sealed, but anyway: How would you have punished her, if she didn't say such stupid things afterwards?

 

[Ghostrider]

I'm now not right behind her.

You can still be right behind her, but with your guns hot.:lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

You can still be right behind her, but with your guns hot.:lol:

Or with a monotone humming tone... which says "Get out of my airspace before I loose patience"

 

[Notebook]

Yes, my guns are hot, but my eyesight has gone.

N.

 

[Hielor]

AFAIR, not having your radio on is even outside controlled airspace a very stupid idea. Maybe not completely illegal, but a good reason to question your sanity. How to communicate with you then? as you can see, the suddenly appearing fighter jets are not understood in every language.

Yes, like I said, having a radio and not using it isn't the best idea.

But I think, she should go away with a warning, if she didn't do anything like that in the past decades of flying. Her explanation might be a bit stupid and she would have been better off, if she would have kept her lips sealed, but anyway: How would you have punished her, if she didn't say such stupid things afterwards?

Maybe you're right--well, at the least, I think she should get the bill for the jet fuel for the intercept :lol:

Her explanation (and not turning her radio on after the intercept) makes me suspect that she knew what was going on and thought she'd get in less trouble if she played dumb.

 

[Urwumpe]

Her explanation (and not turning her radio on after the intercept) makes me suspect that she knew what was going on and thought she'd get in less trouble if she played dumb.

Either that, or she was just the typical old lady - which are worse than the young punks, when it comes to following the rules. NEVER expect an elder lady to follow rules, especially not her own rules. They might be polite, but strongly convinced that the rules must be some kind of strange accident and just guidelines.

 

[DanM]

"The widow told US media she thought the warplanes were just admiring her plane." :facepalm:

 

[Ghostrider]

That's almost Mr Magoo-grade epic F41L.

 

[FADEC]

Ridiculous. It's a bagatelle, NOTAMs back and forth, which happens regularly here and there. It only was in the media because of Mr. President and the two F-16's. And I think she is trying to make fun of Mr. President and the two F-16's by saying that she thought that the jets were just admiring her plane. I like it :thumbup:

The world is facing real issues meanwhile...

 

[Keatah]

Why don't they put bullhorns on the f-16 so the pilots can just yell at the other plane in case of radio failure?

Or why not have the f-16 pull way ahead and make contrail Morse code? Or do some sky writing? Lot's of ways to communicate with a plane that has no radio..

 

[Turbinator]

How can a jet fighter intercept a light aircraft like the Piper J-3, the jet fighter would fall out of the sky at such low speeds.

Kind of like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTR-J3iBCYs"]F-16 Deep Stall Close Call - YouTube[/ame]

 

[N757QQ]

My guess would be them circling the cub. I'm not certain but I think the F-16s would stall, even in landing configuration, full flaps, around 140 or so, and the Cub she was flying, if it is the one pictured, wouldn't make 140kts unless it was falling out of the sky.

 

[Hielor]

Why don't they put bullhorns on the f-16 so the pilots can just yell at the other plane in case of radio failure?

Or why not have the f-16 pull way ahead and make contrail Morse code? Or do some sky writing? Lot's of ways to communicate with a plane that has no radio..

Oddly enough, my most recent sectional chart doesn't seem to have it, but previous ones have the following text printed in a rather obvious box on the front:

All aircraft operating in the U.S. national airspace, if capable, will maintain a listening watch on VHF guard 121.5 or UHF 243.0. It is incumbent on all aviators to know and understand their responsibilities if intercepted. Additionally, if the U.S. military intercepts an aircraft and flares are dispensed in the area of that aircraft, aviators will pay strict attention, contact air traffic control immediately on the local frequency or on VHF guard 121.5 or UHF 243.0 and follow the intercept's visual ICAO signals. Be advised that noncompliance may result in the use of force.

I've never been intercepted (and I intend to keep it that way), but I imagine they would typically communicate by rocking their wings, dispensing flares, or lowering their landing gear (to indicate "land now").

How can a jet fighter intercept a light aircraft like the Piper J-3, the jet fighter would fall out of the sky at such low speeds.

Fly past close enough to get their attention. You don't have to keep pace.

 

[Ghostrider]

Why don't they put bullhorns on the f-16 so the pilots can just yell at the other plane in case of radio failure?

Don't know if it's true for all models, but many fighter planes have a nice powerful spotlight on their port side.

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't know if it's true for all models, but many fighter planes have a nice powerful spotlight on their port side.

It would already be loud enough if you turn on the afterburner next to the small plane. Sadly this would also be loud enough to make the people on the ground annoyed.