[HN Gopher] My grandfather was almost shot down at the White Hou... ___________________________________________________________________ My grandfather was almost shot down at the White House (2018) Author : plondon514 Score : 130 points Date : 2023-01-17 14:51 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (nones-leonard.medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (nones-leonard.medium.com) | amelius wrote: | Of course the White House didn't want the same embarrassment as | the Kremlin felt when some guy landed a sports airplane on the | Red Square. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust | raldi wrote: | What a story! I've submitted it as a post of its own. | francisofascii wrote: | After looking at the map I am a little confused on which river. | Sounds like he took off in a NE direction and the ATC's command | to "follow the river" meant follow the Anacostia river NE. Maybe | the pilot was confused by the Washington Channel and started to | follow that when he turned left? | rtkwe wrote: | They say they lined up on runway 18 which is now runway 19 so | they were flying almost directly south. That doesn't really | clear up how they had any ambiguity about what direction they | should go to follow the river though because for a decent ways | you're already following the river downstream. | NelsonMinar wrote: | Technology has made this problem better: most pilots these days | are flying with a GPS enabled moving map. Little airplane icon, | big scary boxes around restricted airspace. Yes all this stuff is | optional and a good pilot will have other ways of knowing where | they are. But in normal operation most pilots have something | simple now. That wasn't the case years ago. | DerekL wrote: | Title has a typo. It should be "the White House". | boringg wrote: | I feel like there has to be a lot of stories similar to this | where people got really close to getting shot down. Rare but not | completely uncommon .. or is this truly a unique story? | goodcanadian wrote: | I really doubt that he was all that close to being shot down. I | actually doubt fighters were scrambled or missiles armed. They | might have been if he had entered restricted airspace, but from | the story, it sure sounds like he did not. Even if he did enter | restricted airspace, the threat would have been assessed, | actions taken, and so on. Perhaps, he might have even gotten a | fighter escort out of restricted airspace. Shooting down a | plane over a populated area is going to be an absolute last | resort. | blamazon wrote: | The following sounds so stressful, especially considering the 727 | was a trijet with a center engine! [1] That must have been a | crazy vantage point in that time period. | | > Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and | taxied to runway 18 and took my place behind a 727, a large | commercial airliner. When I looked back I saw another 727 roll | onto the taxiway behind me and then as I slowly rolled forward | there was another one behind that one. I was about twelth for | departure. The radio traffic was constant. Like Jeopardy | contestents the one that was quickest on the button got heard and | those guys in the big planes were really fast. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727 | knodi123 wrote: | > "Airline pilots are the best at what they do and have spent | years honing their craft." | | And apparently one of those rare and vital skills is filling in | the gaps when talking to air traffic controllers who are not | competent to communicate life-or-death information. | krisoft wrote: | No the rare and vital skill is to get a map and look at it and | figure out which way you are going to go. How come this person | didn't know if they have to turn left or right? How come they | didn't know from the top of their head the airspace structure | around them (including restricted airspaces, especially). This | is 101 level stuff. | GTP wrote: | But at the same time, ATC told him to follow the river, while | in its trajectory he was crossing it. Did he do a wrong | maneuver that made him go in the wrong direction form the | start? Or was ATC that didn't give the information correctly? | tjohns wrote: | The river visual is a published approach for DCA. P-56 (the | restricted airspace the pilot almost penetrated) is VERY | well known and would top of mind for anyone flying in that | airspace - not to mention highlighted on paper charts, | EFBs, and panel-mount GPSes. | | This is basic preflight planning. The pilot didn't | adequately prepare, given the complexity of the airspace | they were flying in. | | ATC isn't there to micromanage your flight. They don't need | to tell you to avoid restricted airspace, it's implied. | BWStearns wrote: | If ATC tells you to do something you have to do that (with | rare exceptions). Doesn't matter if you want to go some other | direction. So even if he wanted to go up the Anacostia, if | ATC said go up the Potomac then you go up the Potomac so it | doesn't have to do with not knowing where you're going, it's | the ambiguity of the instruction. | | Could he have guessed that the Anacostia would have been a | better decision since the mall is just up the Potomac? Sure, | maybe, but the real answer is be rude on the radio if you | have to and get that clarification. | krisoft wrote: | > Doesn't matter if you want to go some other direction. | | I'm not talking about wanting to go some other direction. | I'm talking about the previous departure clearance he | received. Those are the "A very busy air traffic controller | spit out departure instructions." followed by the "hectic | voice said "we have an amendment to your departure are you | ready to copy"". Those are telling him which way to go. And | they don't just rattle them off and good luck. They wait | for the pilot to read them back, and they check that the | pilot reads them back correctly. | | I bet that he was not cleared for a visual departure out of | DCA. So the departure he received must have had a list of | nav points. Were they left or right? What restricted | airspaces were there in the vicinity he should be aware of? | | You know, it is telling that those details are left out. | Probably if they were spelled out it would be clearer how | big a mistake the pilot did. Very conveniently they are | mentioned but not described. | tjohns wrote: | > I bet that he was not cleared for a visual departure | out of DCA. | | Why not? DCA has a charted, named visual arrival. A | visual departure via pilotage is no different, and is | very common for VFR flights. (Yes, they would've been | given a departure clearance with a route to follow, but | "follow the river" is a valid VFR clearance.) | | KDVA RIVER VISUAL RWY 19 - https://www.fly.faa.gov/Inform | ation/east/zdc/dca/atcCharts/D... | | > What restricted airspaces were there in the vicinity he | should be aware of? | | That's on the chart. ATC doesn't need to (and usually | won't) tell you about those. It's expected the pilot has | done adequate preflight planning to be aware of them. | BWStearns wrote: | You have to do a readback but unless you're familiar with | DC geography you might not think to ask which river to | follow. You could give the readback correctly and then | realize you have follow up questions that can't be | addressed conclusively by looking at a map. Correct move | by that point was ask for clarification even if it made | you sound dumb on the radio. | csours wrote: | I wonder if Air Traffic Controller is a misnomer of the same | type as "Autopilot". It's a true enough description, but it | gives the wrong impression to inexperienced persons. | | Pilots are always responsible for flying their aircraft in a | safe manner. At the same time, the whole system must allow for | pilots to do this. It has been many years since aircraft | incidents have been investigated in a monocausal manner; the | whole system is examined each time. | | ATC expects a high level of professionalism from pilots, | especially at a major airport. | blamazon wrote: | Why are we still doing air control with competitive real time | voice radio anyway? Can we not engineer in some queued delay of | planning? | | (I know nothing of the vagaries of air control) | leeter wrote: | Primary ATC is still done that way but at least for the big | jets there are other ways they send digital comms to ATC[1]. | The main reason is because radios fail and more complex | radios fail more easily. A standard Jetliner carries three | radios, any of which the pilots can use to contact ATC. The | bands are internationally standardized. So it's not just a | case of the FAA mandating a change. It would have to be the | entire world. So even if the FAA did require digital radios | it wouldn't actually change much because both ground and | plane would still have to transmit analog backup anyway. That | creates more chatter etc. | | It's also important to recognize that controllers are human | and can only deal with one thing at once. The current system | generally speaking gives one human control over one section | of airspace. | | In this specific case the pilot should have been aware of the | restricted airspace and set a flight plan that took them away | from it before turning to their destination. There is zero | excuses for flying into restricted airspace as there are | published maps. The zone around the WH and USC is a permanent | zone, so even less of an excuse. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS | blamazon wrote: | Interesting, that explanation does make sense. It's | interesting to think about how the limits of human | synchronous focus are involved. That must be such a | stressful job! TIL about ACARS. | kube-system wrote: | People may chime in at any time and the relative priority, | timing, volume, etc of calls is unknown in advance. Basically | it's CSMA, implemented via human brain. If it's good enough | for Ethernet, it's good enough for ATC. | [deleted] | dogleash wrote: | Resilience. | | Put on your systems theory hat when thinking about | alternatives. | | FWIW, As was discussed in the post, ground/departure channels | at a major airport were overwhelmingly busy for a private | pilot untrained in that environment. As an occasional private | passenger, I'm accustomed to quite low radio traffic because | of the routes and airports we use. I've heard radio so quiet | that a Controller handed us off to... herself on a different | frequency for a different airspace. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | my startup is providing air traffic control solutions using | an AI trained bot to talk to the pilots when a life and death | situation arises! | blamazon wrote: | I feel it somewhat obvious that humans talking to humans is | a good thing for life and death split second stuff, same | page there. | | But aren't most of the comms really rote and mundane | instructions that follow a standard pattern? We trust | automated systems to land the plane, [1] why not to tell a | plane to say, cross runway 22 and stop at threshold Z? | | A human could still give that instruction, but with a | button instead of their mouth parts flapping? Then the | radio channel would be more open for higher urgency stuff. | | [1]: https://youtu.be/LyVuGQUl2bA | NordSteve wrote: | Same reason there's party chat in your FPS game - puts a | sense to use for a real time information channel. Most of the | time voice ATC comms are boring, but when they are not | they're super useful. | | Set a calendar reminder for the afternoon of July 23, 2023 in | UTC-5, and go listen to the audio channel for the north ATC | sector for AirVenture arrivals at KOSH. You'll get what I | mean. | BWStearns wrote: | Airplanes live for decades (probably a fair amount are going | to pass the 100 year mark) and so backwards compatibility is | a huge issue for adding any tech into the system. | | Radio works pretty well and it's flexible. Imagine some | asshole is flying a drone around on short final. It's easy | enough to say "Hey heads up everyone, there's a DJI buzzing | around at 200'", but with a more streamlined system there | might not be an easy way to communicate that, and if you have | the new system and radios then you still need to commmunicate | everything on both while everyone adopts the new system. | Animats wrote: | Another clueless VFR pilot in Washington DC restricted airspace. | This reads like pre 9/11 procedures. Hearing from Oklahoma City | FAA 3 weeks later has to be pre-9/11. | | Currently, operations to and from Ronald Reagan Washington | National Airport, DCA, are "limited to DCA Approved Carriers."[1] | There's a huge restricted area covering the whole Washington area | and special ID and approval procedures. Any aircraft out of place | gets an F-16 and a Coast Guard helicopter escort. (Used to be two | F-16s, but the Coast Guard is more used to dealing with the lost | and clueless.) This has happened hundreds of times, and now the | FAA makes anyone who wants to fly anywhere near Washington take a | course on how to do it. | | [1] | https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/13... | joshdick wrote: | And that's why we now require any pilot flying VFR within 60nm of | DC to get special training: | | https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-se... | m2fkxy wrote: | and that's why you have a chart of every place you fly to, from, | or through, sitting on your knee or not very far from it. | mannykannot wrote: | In addition to everything else, this pilot may have put himself | at considerable risk of running into wake turbulence by following | behind a 727. Waiting 3 minutes or more for the vortices to | dissipate would not have gone down well in this situation. | tjohns wrote: | The 3 minute delay for wake turbulence is required by ATC | procedures (when applicable). It can only be waived by the | pilot in specific situations, and _only_ by the pilots request. | | It's built into the procedures, expected, and is totally | acceptable. | | Source: FAA JO 7110.65, Chapter 3, Section 10 ("Arrival | Procedures and Separation") | | https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html... | jamesmoroni wrote: | I had a similar experience in 2008. I was an Air Force helicopter | pilot stationed at Andrews Air Force Base just outside DC. I got | a last-minute assignment to show a new copilot some of our | operating sites on the north side of DC. One of those sites was | Camp David. I read through the NOTAMS but didn't notice that the | large restricted area around Camp David was active that day | because the president was there. So we totally busted through the | outer restricted area and the Secret Service wanted my head. They | launched a helicopter to chase me away, and they almost launched | the F-16s at Andrews. I almost lost my wings. It was a bad day. | pivo wrote: | I've just finished reading, "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the | Secret Service" by Carol Leonnig [0]. In that book the author | describes an incident on September 12, 1994 [1] in which a pilot | landed a small plane in front of the white house. Secret Service | members she interviewed were dumfounded that they were asked | there to run to the white house roof with rifles to protect the | building, and that there were no such thing as anti-aircraft | missiles available at the time. More recently, another person | landed a small aircraft on the Whitehouse grounds [2] with | (apparently) no missiles involved. | | Maybe the missiles are elsewhere, or maybe they're just a cost- | effective rumor. The book makes it clear that the Secret Service | is constantly underfunded and sorely lacking in modern | technology, with agents sometimes having to use their personal | car to transport the people they're protecting because their | official cars aren't working. | | [0] https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Fail-Rise-Secret- | Service/dp/0399... | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder | | [2] https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on- | ca... | yencabulator wrote: | 1994 was a long time ago. Here's a picture of one known setup | for you: | | https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a30027303/... | ok_dad wrote: | The answer is that the people with their finger on the missile | trigger knew the aircraft was no threat due to radar and visual | interceptions and decided not to launch a dangerous missile | into the middle of a huge city full of important officials | since moving the President and other important officials to a | basement would be sufficient to protect them from a Cessna. | Instead, they waited for the plane to come down somewhere (on | the lawn, it seems) and arrested the person inside. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > knew the aircraft was no threat | | A Cessna intentionally crashing into the White House is no | threat? Especially if packed with explosives? | ihattendorf wrote: | Not if you have ample time to move everyone to safety | before it arrives. Seems a good trade off to make if you | aren't confident what the pilot's intentions are instead of | just blowing them out of the sky. | LarryMullins wrote: | > _since moving the President and other important officials | to a basement would be sufficient to protect them from a | Cessna._ | | I think it's safe to assume that the bunkers under the | White House are sufficient protection against as much | explosives as a Cessna could possibly carry. The plane | itself will do almost no damage, it's a flimsy thing built | light out of aluminum and it's not even fast. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash#/ | m... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _people with their finger on the missile trigger knew the | aircraft was no threat due to radar and visual interceptions | and decided not to launch a dangerous missile_ | | I don't think we have evidence of this. The simple truth is | the U.S. government doesn't fortify against domestic enemies | in a systematic way. | cafard wrote: | "Landed" is not quite correct for 1994: the guy crashed it. (He | had been smoking crack beforehand, as I recall.) | | This led the government to close Pennsylvania Avenue NW between | 15th and 17th Streets. The reasoning was not apparent, for the | pilot had certainly not taken off there--he flew from a field | in Maryland. | ufmace wrote: | I have no idea how the Secret Service in particular is doing, | but I would kind of expect that any actual anti-aircraft | missiles would be owned and operated by some unit of the Army | or National Guard or something. They own all of the actual | missiles, and repair and maintenance people and gear, and | probably training for how to operate it and how to try not to | fuck up when you have 15 seconds to determine if an incoming | aircraft is hostile and needs to have missiles fired at it. | | Also the way they were caught with their pants down on 9/11 | kind of suggests that there was no actual military level | ordinance readily available around DC at the time. Maybe there | is now, but I heard at the time they scrambled some fighter | jets with no weapons because there wasn't time to get the | weapons out of wherever they were stored and load them up. | thepasswordis wrote: | >The book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly | underfunded and sorely lacking in modern technology, with | agents sometimes having to use their personal car to transport | the people they're protecting because their official cars | aren't working. | | Maybe the answer is to cool it with the idea that government | officials all need to have large personal protective details. | Isn't that the job of the police? And aren't they all just | citizens of this country? If it's not safe for various | politicians to walk around in the streets, then maybe they | should do something about that because it means that it is | unsafe for _everybody_. | vt85 wrote: | [dead] | throwaway1777 wrote: | I like your take but politicians do have a target on their | back that the average citizen doesn't. | TheRealPomax wrote: | But not one so big that every one of them needs | multimillion dollars worth of protecting. A handful | absolutely do, the vast majority don't. They will be | perfectly fine. They might catch an egg or cake, or in the | rare instance a fist: they'll still be fine. | sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: | As far as I am aware, the vast majority of politicians in | the US do not receive Secret Service protection. | | "every one of them needs multimillion dollars worth of | protecting" is a straw man. Of course the vast majority | of politicians, which includes a lot of city council | members of tiny towns and so forth, do not need a 24hr | security detail. And they don't have them either. | | It happens for the handful, not the majority. Which seems | to be what you want, but your tone is frustrated or | angry. | mschuster91 wrote: | Unfortunately, that is increasingly changing. The covid | pandemic, for example, has led to a _massive_ increase in | threats to everyone advocating for containment measures, | and so do the advocates of other political issues | impacted by conspiracy myth spreaders and /or the far- | right (e.g. 5G rollouts, single-payer healthcare, gun | control, immigration). | | Having been the target of about five dozen death threats | myself as a political commentator/activist here in | Germany, I can tell you the political climate drastically | devolved over the last seven years, and police is nowhere | near the security system it should be. In my case it took | over four years until the main perpetrator was | identified, arrested and subsequently sentenced to almost | six years in prison[1]. And for what it's worth, it's not | limited to politicians, journalists and activists - even | _ordinary doctors_ can be driven to suicide [2], or | YouTube streamers such as the infamous _Drachenlord_ [3]. | | [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSU_2.0 | | [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa-Maria_Kellermayr | | [3] https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/kommentar- | wer-dem-d... | TheRealPomax wrote: | That's a problem with a different solution, though. | | _Loads_ of people in other countries issue the same | threats, but because they don 't readily have access to | ranged weapons, and specifically firearms (and every | legal firearm that they _do_ have are registered with the | police), those threats are just that: threats. | | Of course, we know the problem there, and everyone knows | the solution, and everyone knows that solution cannot | happen in the US, even if in the past it might have been | possible to solve. | | So by all means, protect the ones who really need it, but | in a lot of cases, the solution to someone whose agenda | is so controversial that they need secret service | protection during elected visits to adversarial places | (rather than being compelled to do so because of the | office you hold) is to go "we're not going to protect you | for personal activities. If you want to walk into a | lion's den, expect lions. If you don't like that, maybe | consider that you don't need to rile people up" | gizmo686 wrote: | Most politicians do not get secret service protection. | Only those in the line of succesion, former presidents | and family of the above. | | The handful of congresspeople in leadership get special | protection from capital police. Most elected congress | people only get special protection if there is a specific | concern. | | https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general | rqtwteye wrote: | "Maybe the answer is to cool it with the idea that government | officials all need to have large personal protective | details." | | I lived in the DC area on and after 9/11. There was a huge | increase of governmnent officials having drivers and flying | private jet "for security reasons" | phpisthebest wrote: | General rule for me is If any person has soooo much power we | need a dedicated team of people to protect them continuously, | that person has too much power and the solution is not ever- | increasing amount of security, but ever decreasing amount of | power to that individual | aidenn0 wrote: | Assassinating the president has little to do with denying | him the power of the presidency, and more to do with what | he is a symbol of. | | Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office | workers | fijiaarone wrote: | A lot of presidents have been assassinated in America. | Not one assassination has affected the continuum of | government or been more than a personal tragedy. | dctoedt wrote: | > _Not one assassination has affected the continuum of | government or been more than a personal tragedy._ | | The formerly-enslaved workers in the American South would | like a word about Lincoln's assassination and his | replacement by the southern sympathizer Andrew Johnson, | who had very different ideas about Reconstruction and the | rights of freedmen. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson | phpisthebest wrote: | Symbols can be powerful... | | That is the issue, the foundational principle of the | United States was that we were a federalist system with a | weak and narrowly defined federal government. The office | of Presidency should be inconsequential to the Everyday | citizen of either the US or the world. | | The fact that we continually shift more power from Local | / State government, then from Congress to the Executive | is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol of Power" | | >Kind of like how 9/11 wasn't about killing some office | workers | | Again the theory of Distribution apply here to building | as well. World Trade Center was attacked because NYC is | seen as the Central Place for world finance. | | NYC has become too powerful and that power should be | distributed. | marnett wrote: | I always thought the two WTC towers were more | representative of global capitalism, not just good | targets for attacking NYC. | jancsika wrote: | > The fact that we continually shift more power from | Local / State government, then from Congress to the | Executive is the exact reason the president is a "Symbol | of Power" | | This is all rank and dubious speculation wrt your general | rule about POTUS needing a dedicated security team. | | Hell, Duane Johnson needs a dedicated security team. | | If you are positing a federal government so weak that | POTUS is not widely known within the U.S. population, | you're political views are more radical than you're | letting on. | prottog wrote: | What part of GP's take on the American federalist system | are you describing as radical? Seems to me that the truly | radical thing is what the federal government has morphed | into over the years, its founding constitutional document | notwithstanding. | adolph wrote: | It's almost as if such an investment is a brittle | monarchical single basket of collective eggs. | | The would be assassins are as backwards about the symbols | as the sycophants. They don't see symbols as a byproduct, | a shelved trophy of societal achievement, rather than its | cause. It is understandable that a religious person would | invert cause and effect, as if the shine of wet streets | made rain. It is a bad thing for the US to become a cargo | cult of itself. | pixl97 wrote: | So how do you plan to deal with the continuation of | government and nuclear weapon problem? | thepasswordis wrote: | Is there a continuation of government reason why every | former president continues to have a full time secret | service detail? | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | They are bodyguards. Ex-presidents pissed off a lot of | people, domestically and internationally, when in power. | They are much more likely to be targeted for murder than | the average citizen. | lazide wrote: | They're also just high profile. | | Some random whacko thinking you're in a love affair with | their crush ( _cough_ like Jodie Foster /Reagan) is | enough to catch a bullet. | [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr.] | | Whack jobs are a real problem. | AdamN wrote: | That's the whole premise of Designated Survivor and | Battlestar Galactica even. The US has 16 levels of | succession at which point it peters out. | | It seems like the threat of a decapitation strike against | the US has been mitigated. | gus_massa wrote: | For many years the secret code to launch nuclear missiles | was for a long time 00000000 | https://sgs.princeton.edu/00000000 Now they claim they | changed it, but be sure that if the president is dead the | military have some workaround to launch the misiles. | prottog wrote: | > if the president is dead the military have some | workaround to launch the misiles. | | The presidential line of succession exists for a reason. | It's the office of the president that has the power to | authorize a nuclear strike, not the person. | phpisthebest wrote: | >>how do you plan to deal with the continuation of | government | | Federalism. The Federal Government does far too much and | most of its function should be left to State and Local | governments. | | >>and nuclear weapon problem? | | MAD is a terrible strategy, and I dont think our Nuclear | weapons serve the function many believe they do. | dctoedt wrote: | > _The Federal Government does far too much and most of | its function should be left to State and Local | governments._ | | Except that state and local governments are more | vulnerable to capture by rent-seekers and other special- | interest groups bent on shaping public policy to suit | their desires. | LarryMullins wrote: | What, besides MAD, has prevented Putin from using | tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? | | inb4 _" they don't work anymore"_, Russia has a mature | nuclear industry and huge stockpiles of nuclear material. | They're more than capable of making nuclear bombs which | work. | beebmam wrote: | If the federal government should be reduced in power, | then why should state or local governments have any more | power over individuals? | mulmen wrote: | Because I have more power as a voter and constituent to | influence policies that affect me. | | At a national level I am 1 of 331,900,000. | | At a state level I am 1 of 7,739,000. | | At a county level I am one of 2,252,000. | | At a city level I am one of 733,919. | | At a neighborhood level I am one of 82,123. | | I have four orders of magnitude more influence over my | city council rep than I do over my president. | dctoedt wrote: | > _Because I have more power as a voter and constituent | to influence policies that affect me._ | | If only things actually worked that way. The vast | majority of voters don't exercise that power. Moreover, | state and local governments are more vulnerable to | capture by rent-seekers and other special-interest groups | bent on shaping public policy to suit their desires. | sobkas wrote: | > If the federal government should be reduced in power, | then why should state or local governments have any more | power over individuals? | | Because the smaller government is (federal>state>local) | the resources needed to hollow it out and made into | puppet also drop. | [deleted] | xamolxix wrote: | >> MAD is a terrible strategy | | What is a better strategy? | | >> and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the | function many believe they do. | | What function do you believe many believe they serve, and | what function do you believe they actually serve? | hotpotamus wrote: | I wonder how big Musk or Bezos's security teams are? | boeingUH60 wrote: | I'll bet it's large but nothing close to that of the | President and other top government officials. For | example, the U.S. government is currently paying $2 | million per month to protect former Secretary of State | Mike Pompeo due to Iran threats[1]. That's the former, | now think of what it'll cost to protect the current | Secretary plus all the private travel costs on that giant | Boeing 757. | | 1- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/us-pays-2m-a- | month-to-... | throwaway1777 wrote: | It was revealed a few years ago Zuckerberg was paying | about 20M per year on security. That's almost 2M per | month... | LarryMullins wrote: | It seems likely he gets less bang for his buck. The | Secret Service is a much larger organization so they can | take advantage of economies of scale. On the other hand, | government agencies can be very inefficient when | permitted to be, so who really knows. | safety1st wrote: | Who cares? | | The perennial mistake is believing that if any of these | guys get capped, it's some irreparable loss to society. | It's not. | | Let them play the odds of life like the rest of us do. A | society that depends on strongmen isn't a free society. | petsfed wrote: | I think there's merit to at least forestalling rule-by- | assassination. | | Like, yes, I would not mourn a lot of people who end up | having protective details. But I absolutely don't want to | live in a world where all it takes to change a policy is | one particularly motivated sociopath. Keep in mind that | John Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on Reagan wasn't | out of disagreement with Reagan's policies, it was to | impress Jodi Foster. A nobody's obsession with an actress | is really, REALLY not the thing we should allow to | materially affect our civilization. | | I think there's a good argument to be made that the WWII- | era Japanese government became the one capable of its | atrocities in China specifically because assassination | was so frequently employed to check to its power. | ElevenLathe wrote: | Reagan had an elected vice president. Bush Sr. being in | charge instead of Reagan is not what I would call a | material effect on our civilization. These guys are all | interchangeable, as evidenced by the fact that we change | them on purpose at least every eight years. | dctoedt wrote: | Let's not forget the 1914 assassination of the Austrian | archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife by a Serbian | nationalist: That one murder started the dominos falling | for a 30-year continent-wide war (with a 20-year | intermission) that killed millions of soldiers and | civilians -- eventually including some _two-thirds_ of | Europe 's Jews, as well as hundreds of thousands of Roma, | Sinti, and other so-called "undesirables," murdered by | the Nazis on an industrial scale. That war also destroyed | a fairly-prosperous international commercial system; | devastated most of the continent's physical and economic | infrastructure; and catapulted Russia and the U.S. to the | status of global hegemons. | hotpotamus wrote: | Oh you're singing to the choir on that stuff. Don't get | me started on who we can and can't feed into the | woodchipper because I'm already rate-limited. I'm just | always surprised when people limit their thinking (and | I'm not saying the post that spawned my response was | guilty of that, though it's possible) of the powerful in | society to government officials. | cowsup wrote: | Nowhere near as large, or influential, as the Secret | Service. If you've ever had to commute near airport, and | the POTUS is flying in or out, you're essentially | screwed, for potentially hours. | | Musk or Bezos could request a place deny entry to other | customers while they shop or eat. Secret Service can | demand. It's a whole different beast altogether. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | > ... but ever decreasing amount of power to that | individual | | Assuming that the power needs to exist, this implies that | we would need more people, which in turn makes the | government larger. | hotpotamus wrote: | Bruce Schneier once said something that really stuck with me. | He was talking about the culture of the DHS I believe and how | their mission was "Never Again" in the wake of 9/11. But | _never_ is basically an impossible standard to meet, and the | result was that we get security theater instead. I would | imagine you can also soak up a near infinite amount of money | and effort trying to achieve never again. Zero Fail sounds | like the same thing. | mc32 wrote: | 'Never' and 'Zero' programs are all aspirational. We want | Zero pedestrian deaths, but we know it's not possible (even | in back in the age of horses), but still something we | should aim for within reason. | mwint wrote: | It's that "within reason" that people get hung up on. | [deleted] | chucksmash wrote: | > Maybe the answer is to cool it with the idea that | government officials all need to have large personal | protective details. Isn't that the job of the police? | | So like Shinzo Abe? | | Edit: I picked Shinzo Abe because it was a recent example I | felt people would be familiar with, but honestly it seems | like any notoriety at all is dangerous. Someone assassinated | MLK Jr's _mother_ [1] while she played a church organ. | Relying on the general reasonableness of other people doesn't | seem to scale at all. | | [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/22/obituaries/m-w- | chenault-4... | nivenkos wrote: | Or Olof Palme. | seunosewa wrote: | J F Kennedy | mc32 wrote: | On the other hand... Indira Gandhi. | bakul wrote: | She might have escaped her fate if she had replaced her | Sikh bodyguards with non Sikhs after Operation Blue Star | that removed a militant Sikh religious leader and his | followers from the Golden Temple in Amritsar. | macinjosh wrote: | Indeed, these very same people who demand a well-armed and | trained _personal_ security detail are the very same people | who enact laws to deprive the convenience store worker from | having a firearm to defend themselves with while working in | the middle of the night. | phpisthebest wrote: | >> book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly | underfunded | | it is critical that we recognize a few truths before we declare | something "underfunded" | | 1. No amount of funding will ever "be enough". Government | programs and depts expand to meet their budget + 25-50%... so | they are always underfunded, you can increase a budget by 2x, | 3x, 5x, and the very next year they will be claiming "we do not | have enough money" | | 2. Where is the money going.... Often in government budgets | essentials (like fleet repair) are cut in favor of non- | essentials in order to make the budget issue into a "crisis". | It is much easier to blackmail the public /congress/ who ever | that is controlling the budget with "We have to use our | personal cars" instead of "We had to give up our Cappuccino's" | . Just because essential services are being cut does not mean | nonessential services have. This is seen in local government | often when they cut the big 4 (schools, fire, police, roads) | first because it is easy to pass a tax increase for those 4 | items than any other local service / program. | foota wrote: | Looks like they get ~3 billion a year and employ 8000 people. | Seems like chump change. They have responsibilities beyond | just protecting the president. | Retric wrote: | The less politically interesting government agencies tend to | work surprisingly well with minimal budget and no need for | games. | | The National Transportation Safety Board for example has a | 2023 budget request of 129 million. They are simply for too | tiny and useful for anyone to really mess with. | | The National Weather Service might have 10x the budget still | generally gets ignored by politicians as so many companies, | people, and government agencies depend on what they provide. | mschuster91 wrote: | > 1. No amount of funding will ever "be enough". Government | programs and depts expand to meet their budget + 25-50%... so | they are always underfunded, you can increase a budget by 2x, | 3x, 5x, and the very next year they will be claiming "we do | not have enough money" | | Well, the scope that the general public (or the impact of | freshly passed laws) _also_ continuously expands, and payment | /contractor/vendor costs rise as well, which explains some of | the demand for more funding. | | A part of the blame also lies in parliament groups not doing | effective auditing and oversight on government agencies, | which can differentiate between legitimate growth (for | reasons outlined above) and cancerous growth (as described by | you). | [deleted] | colonwqbang wrote: | Yes, it seems unlikely. How many civilians would be in danger | by the debris raining down on central DC (or the white house | itself, if he really was right over it). Not to mention the | risk of a missile missing the target and instead exploding | somewhere down on the street. | euler_angles wrote: | In the present time, there is an air defense network around | Washington DC. It uses the NASAMs system. Anything that is | determined to be a threat can be engaged with surface launched | AIM-120C missiles. | | https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/what-we-do/defence-and-securit... | neutered_knot wrote: | A launcher is visible on Google Maps, and is still there. I | drove by it today. | | https://goo.gl/maps/LByxzGzqQ28ETtJb9 | aimor wrote: | That Pentagon shaped pool really caught my eye, then the | long covered building, had to look it up. Now I know all | about the David Taylor Model Basin and the Naval Surface | Warfare Center's Explosive Test Pond. | | https://www.navalgazing.net/David-Taylor-Model-Basin | | https://www7430.nrlssc.navy.mil/bblp/mine/carderock01.htm | squallgmn wrote: | Washington National doesn't have any runways that run | perpendicular to the Potomac, so if the pilot maintained runway | heading on takeoff, he should have already been more or less | aligned with the river going north or south. The story says he | landed on a 6000 foot runway. There are three runways on the | field: 1/19 is 7169 feet, 15/33 is 5204 feet, and 4/22 is 5000 | feet. It's possible the runways were configured differently back | then, but it's most likely that runway 1/19 was in use because | it's the only one over 6000 feet. That runway runs almost due | North/South. If the tower operator instructed the pilot to follow | the river after departure and intended the pilot to fly south, | it's almost certain the pilot took off on runway 19 which is | nearly parallel to the river and the pilot would be traveling | south. If the pilot found themselves crossing the river, they | were not on a runway heading and had already deviated. The pilot | could have checked his compass or heading indicator, take into | account the runway heading of 190 degrees, and that should have | informed him to turn right to return to his original heading. | Instead, the pilot turned left which put him in the opposite | heading he was assigned. | theideaofcoffee wrote: | He mentioned in the piece that he was on 18: | | "Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and | taxied to runway 18..." | | 18 at the time it was written/recounted, and 19 now most likely | due to pole drift. | rtkwe wrote: | That does match with the rest of the story. Left turn of of | 18/19 to go up river would point him back towards the | Whitehouse and Capitol. It does make their mistake a little | more egregious though because if they're 'following the | river' turning nearly 180 to do that and also not following | the flow is much larger change than simply following your | current heading and making the small turn to follow the river | out to sea. That unexpected and uninstructed turn back | towards the WH and Capitol certainly would have raised a lot | of eyebrows. | | One thing I am having trouble with is picturing where they | would have been crossing the river at 1500 feet. The Potomac | is basically at the end of the runway he took off from. | | On the other hand for the rest of the process small planes | aren't that rare in National and there's even a rather scenic | approach pattern that actually follows the Potomac into | runway 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zco3XlYt6Ko | squallgmn wrote: | During flight school, one of the first things we learn on a | piston-single aircraft is to apply right rudder and | maintain runway heading on takeoff. Small single-engine | planes have a tendency to yaw left due to effects of | torque, slipstream, and p-factor. I'm guessing the pilot | drifted left on climbout due to lack of right rudder. He | could have turned 90 degrees by the time he leveled out at | 1500 feet and been over the river. Sometimes as pilots, the | worst thing we can do is react. It's usually best to take a | breath, think about your situation, cross-check, decide, | and act intentionally. By rolling the dice, the pilot had a | 50/50 chance of making the wrong decision. I don't like | those odds. | snowwrestler wrote: | Almost certainly he took off northbound, which puts you pretty | quickly over DC if you do not turn your plane left to track | with the bend in the river just north of the airport. | thrwwy95fab9d1 wrote: | I had the same skeptical reaction to this story. The runways | may have changed numbers (I'm not sure how to confirm this), | but if they were crossing the river taking off from what is now | runway 19, they seriously deviated from their flight plan and | deserved the call. | warent wrote: | This should probably say "ground-to-air" with dashes. Title was | super confusing for me for a while. | | Like, right now it reads the ground shot him down into some | missiles that are in the air | Overtonwindow wrote: | The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside, I sense there's | something that is being left out. When the author states _" I | filed a visual flight plan and we were on our way._" that would | seem to indicate that he looked at a chart, saw the restricted | airspace, and planned his takeoff and turn appropriately. | | From the information given, I think the FAA rep was a douche but | the author clearly did not plan his route properly. Also, this | line was very confusing _" cell phones had not not yet been | invented."_ | | If that's the case I seriously doubt missiles were pointed at | anyone. Clearly this is pre-2001, maybe even back to the 80s. | While jets _may_ have been scrambled, I am calling BS on that | whole part of the conversation. | | The timeline, security posture, and even the flight corridors | don't add up. Something is fishy... | mannykannot wrote: | > The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside... | | If this pilot did anything like this today, he would be in for | a lot more trouble than a tongue-lashing over the phone. I | don't know what the range of prescribed sanctions for this sort | of infraction were at the time, but I suspect the person | handling the case was exercising some discretion in choosing to | respond with nothing more than a verbal dope-slap. | elashri wrote: | While this might be true, there were some reports (without | government confirmation) that such missiles already deployed | before 2001 [1]. The other thing is that it might be only a | bluff the FAA officer add fot psychological purpose. | | One last guess is that it might be already anti air missile | system from a nearby airbase or so ( which I don't have idea | about if this was even feasible) | | [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites- | antiaircr... | cjbgkagh wrote: | The FAA rep is not just dissuading the pilot but any others who | may hear about it. Also given the era it was much easier to get | away with such bluffs as people couldn't jump onto the internet | to look for corroborating evidence. | treetoppin wrote: | Interestingly, the US Coast Guards only "no fail" mission is | providing rotary wing air intercept capability to the air defense | network. In the National Capital Region they have helicopters | that get scrambled as part of the air defense response to go | intercept air targets that a slow and low. Basically anything | that it would be hard for a fighter jet to pull up along side and | match airspeed with. The Coast Guard helos don't have any air to | air weapons capability, their main purpose is to prevent false | positives. They can get real close and relay information to the | air defense folks who have access to weapons systems, and also a | helicopter suddenly appearing next to you with a signboard saying | that you need to turn immediately is a pretty good indicator to a | weekend warrior that they are not supposed to be flying there. | [deleted] | gus_massa wrote: | The story was posted in 2018. Do you know when it happened? (Or | at least an approximation.) | cryptonector wrote: | It says that cell phones had not been invented yet: | | > When we were ready to head back to Teterboro Airport, I got | to a phone, [cell phones had not not yet been invented], and | called Departure. [...] | | That's not precise enough to really know. It could mean "before | the 90s", "before 1983", or even "before 1973". The plane's | registration is from 1977, so TFA can't mean literally "before | cell phones were invented". Though I suspect it really means | something like "before cell phones became widely available to | private pilots", which presumably means "before 1990". | plondon514 wrote: | I believe he started flying in his late 30s/early 40s so it | would be around the early 1970s. | | Edit: I just asked him (he's at the dentist) and he said around | 1980, guess I was wrong about when he started flying! | jaclaz wrote: | I would say no earlier than October 1977: | | https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N47943 | ryandrake wrote: | Then definitely before the DC ADIZ. It's kind of tough to | make this mistake anymore. | cryptonector wrote: | That registration and the reference to cell phones not | being available at that time puts the timeline somewhere | between 1977 and 1987 or maybe 1990. | godshatter wrote: | Shouldn't the dispatcher have given more precise directions than | "follow the river"? If they had said "take a right and follow the | river", this wouldn't have been a problem. I suppose they were | used to professional pilots knowing what was meant, but they were | already working to fit a small plane into a larger system | presumably filled with mostly larger jets from commercial | airlines that flew in and out of that airport regularly. Although | I do agree that the pilot should have had no-fly zones at the top | of their mind when flying in or around D.C. | fh973 wrote: | Actually no. The fact that to the left was a restricted | airspace (that the pilot must be aware of) disambiguates the | instructions already. Obviously the pilot did not do their | flight preparation, was it includes being familiar with any | airspace restrictions. | krisoft wrote: | Also. I'm looking at a chart of the DC airspace. P-56, the | restricted airspace containing the White House, is not on any | rivers. If you are following the river (left, right, doesn't | matter) then you are not getting into P-56. If you are | oscillating around the river then yeah, you are going to have | a bad time. | | Also, I'm looking at all the runways at this airport. They | all have one obvious direction which way you should be | following the river. Just from the angle your flightpath | would be crossing the river. | snowwrestler wrote: | If you take off northbound, you only have a few seconds to | turn left with the river before you're over DC and into | restricted airspace. If you take off and obliviously fly | straight, it's too late. It's not a wide river. | | Once you're across the river, turning left is way worse | (takes you directly over the federal complex), so ATC told | them to turn right to exit the restricted airspace. That | would take them around over SE DC. | alistairSH wrote: | Taking off north-bound (runway 1) wouldn't give you the | option of flying up the Anacostia (the right spur that | bisects DC when looking at a standard map). | | Taking of north-east (runway 4) would give you the option | of taking the Potomac (left) or Anacostia (right). | | I've never seen runway 4 used. It's usually a north flow | using 1. | krisoft wrote: | Yeah. No joke. it is even on the departure chart: | "Departing Rwy 1 requires expeditious intercept of | outbound course to ensure avoidance of P-56 boundary" | rtkwe wrote: | From the description they took off from 18 (now 19 due to | pole drift) it sounds like they might have taken a left | basically immediately off the runway which would put them | pointed pretty directly at the restricted airspace around | the Capital and White House. It is odd they'd be there | though considering the story says the check for the river | on reaching 1500 which even at best climb would be around | two minutes after take off which should be well past the | river. | pja wrote: | They probably assumed that a) the pilot knew about the | exclusion zone (kind of a big deal!) and b) you follow a river | downstream (usually) so their instruction seemed (to them) | unambiguous. | jefftk wrote: | _> you follow a river downstream (usually)_ | | Weird; I don't have that connotation of "follow" at all. | rtkwe wrote: | Taking off from runway 18 (now 19) you're pointed | essentially down river already though. The Potomac is right | there at the end of the runway. That's the most confusing | part of the story to me is how he was ambiguously crossing | the river after taking off basically straight downstream. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Yeah; this part makes no sense. | | Anyone in possession of either a geographic sense of the | area (or a VFR sectional) who has departed due south from | National and is told to "maintain runway heading and | follow the river" would not be confused. | rtkwe wrote: | It seems like the FAA guy had at least the core of the | right idea that the author wasn't really prepared for | flying out of such a busy airport and restricted area. | Now afaik access is more restricted and flight plans from | people who haven't taken a particular class on flying | through Washington National will be denied, but you can | still totally fly a small plane into and out of that | airport if you really want to. | itslennysfault wrote: | Honestly, I'm surprised by "follow the river" as a flight | instruction. That sounds like the directions you'd get from | someone that doesn't understand cardinal directions. "Turn | right at the gas station, then turn left at the big oak tree" | or something. | | I have no experience with flying, but I assumed it would be a | heading / cardinal direction and not "turn right at [landmark]" | treis wrote: | It's fairly obvious when you look at the map: | | https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ronald+Reagan+Washington+N. | .. | | Left is upstream and away from DC. Right is towards | restricted airspace. | jcrawfordor wrote: | This is a fairly common instruction from a controller in my | experience, at least when dealing with small aircraft that | they know are flying VFR. Traditional VFR navigation | ("pilotage") is mostly based on finding landmarks anyway. | Flying in another city with a runway pointed towards a river, | "turn after the river," "report crossing the river" are | common instructions. | | Other landmarks popular with controllers include the freeway, | the big Marriot, the Amazon warehouse, etc. It's sort of | surprisingly informal when controllers are dealing with local | light aircraft pilots. But that's mostly how those pilots are | navigating anyway, "follow the freeway until the bridge." | | There probably is a certain risk of misunderstanding here, | but then pilots are expected to be reasonably familiar with | the local area and its procedures, and to ask for vectors | when unsure. These days DC is one of those places that it's | strongly recommended (required by FARs now, I think?) to take | a familiarization course because the airspace issues there | are so sensitive. Plus they have the laser gun to minimize | the need to send fighters. | tjohns wrote: | Indeed. Popular landmarks used by ATC in the SF Bay Area | include a sunken ship in the middle of the bay, a | (particularly large) church, a community college, an AT&T | telephone office, the KNBR antenna, and major freeways. | Among others. | | It's different when flying IFR, but pilotage is an | important part of VFR navigation. | | It's also worth noting there's an IFR visual approach plate | for DCA that basically says the same thing - "follow the | river": | | RIVER VISUAL RWY 19 - https://www.fly.faa.gov/Information/e | ast/zdc/dca/atcCharts/D... | throw827474737 wrote: | Hmm, can someone just paint me that path into Google Maps? | | Washington National has no 18, but only a 19, and I guess | everyone takes off southwards as directly north is the White | House? Also the river is like parallel to the runway and then | the natural extension of it, so "follow the river" there is | super clear, no turn needed? | | I must be looking at the wrong airport? | snowwrestler wrote: | When planes take off northbound from National, they | immediately bank left (northwest) to remain over the river | and avoid the exclusion zones in DC. | | Conversely, planes landing southbound follow the river and | so are banking to the right until a few seconds before | touching down. | wolrah wrote: | > Washington National has no 18, but only a 19 | | Depending on how long ago this happened that could be the | same runway. There was an article that made the front page | here in the last month or so about how the movement of the | magnetic poles requires runway names to be adjusted | periodically. This isn't that same article, I didn't feel | like digging through my history, but it explains the same | topic. | | https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/airport-runway-names-shift- | ma... | | Agreed on the rest though, I just can't figure out a path | that makes this story make sense. | etothepii wrote: | Indeed but CGPGrey explains it in excruciating detail on | YouTube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qD6bPNZRRbQ | cowsup wrote: | You're correct. I live near DC and travel there for | photography (much like the novice pilot in the OP). | | If you're flying near DC, or anywhere really, you should at | least have a broad understanding of where you cannot fly. | That is your responsibility; nobody in your ear will say | "remember, don't go to the restricted airspace." | | The pilot never claims to be the victim here, either. They | screwed up and learned their lesson. | dwater wrote: | I used to sit nearby on my lunch break, and on a clear day | you could watch planes after takeoff clearly follow the | course of the river N/NW until completely out of sight, | which would probably have been close the DC/Maryland | border. They would be going in and out every few minutes | and they all took the exact same flight path. | tylermw wrote: | Many planes take off northwards, and immediately bank to | follow the river. | | Famously, see: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Florida_Flight_90 | dbrueck wrote: | It's actually fairly common (in my area, for example, it's | common for the controller to tell you to follow the | interstate for awhile, and it works especially well at | night). | | Keep in mind too that just telling someone to fly a certain | direction is insufficient - the controller is trying to | maintain separation among aircraft, so they need you to | follow a particular path through a volume. | advisedwang wrote: | "follow the river" is more than a single turn; the river | winds so it's a sequence of turns. Because of this saying | follow the river is much more concise than the specific | turns. | | Many of the takeoff and landing patterns do follow the river: | https://skyvector.com/airport/DCA/Ronald-Reagan- | Washington-N... | dncornholio wrote: | I have a feeling the person who made the call was trying to | intimidate him. I'm fairly sure no jet was being scrambled or | anti-air was being aimed for a small plane that made a wrong | turn.. | godshatter wrote: | We don't know what might have been going on at the White House | at that particular time though. Was the President having a | press conference, for example? | prewett wrote: | I _hope_ they were scrambling jets, that 's their job. I'm sure | they assumed it was some mistake, but if it isn't, by the time | you know for sure it is too late. I'm sure "scrambled" meant | "pilots sprinting for their planes" and beginning the process, | not that they have pilots sitting in warmed up planes ready to | take off for intercept the moment someone crosses the | restricted airspace line. | | The FAA caller was absolutely trying to convey that he was | completely out of his depth, though. As is appropriate. | otikik wrote: | One of the things that surprised me when I flew (as a passenger) | a practice flight on a coworker's Cessna was the constant radio | chat between ground and all the airplanes. There were like 4 | planes doing practice runs like us. It was constant chitchat. | | I can't imagine the noise in a big comercial airport. | | I am sure there's many good reasons for that system, figured out | by people smarter than me with much more experience. | | To me the whole thing felt too ... manual. Imagine a bunch of | train operators trying to avoid head-on collisions by all of them | talking with a single control guy on a shared channel. But the | trains move in 3D, one order of magnitude faster, and if they run | out of fuel, they explode. | goodcanadian wrote: | There is a lot more going on than just the radio | communications. There are standard published approaches and | departures that will generally be flown (once cleared). Flight | plans are filed and clearance given before take-off, so ATC | knows where everyone is going. At a large controlled airport, | ATC is in control, so less needs to be communicated by the | pilots. There are not generally aircraft flying circuits which | is what required so much coordination in your example. Most | aircraft at large airports are required to have ADS-B(1) which | is transmitting aircraft position, altitude, heading, speed, | _et cetera_ to anyone who has a receiver, particularly ATC and | other aircraft. If everything does go bad, large airliners have | TCAS(2). There are also lots of different controllers and | frequencies to handle different parts of the airspace: | approach, departure, tower (take-off and landing). This is just | what I can think of off the top of my head. | | You can listen to what is actually going on at your favourite | airport on www.liveatc.net. | | (1) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillan... | (2) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy... | sidewndr46 wrote: | This is partially mitigated by data systems for commercial | airliners. They have an in cockpit system that give them | takeoff clearance & other details from the relevant air traffic | controllers. I think they still verbally acknowledge something | on the radio, but it is a brief exchange. | | I'll let a professional pilot try and add more detail here as | to how it lessens the workload on the radio. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-17 23:00 UTC)