Morning,An interesting news item this morning:Plane prompts White House evacuationhttp://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/19/white.hou...tion/index.htmlA Cessna 182 flying at 10,500 was "escorted" down by two scrambled F16's. Ouch! You know that (former?!) pilot had great need of a washroom upon landing! :-eekDoesn't look there was foul play in the least... Simply a mistake (um, a LARGE mistake). Evidently no aircraft are allowed below FL180 over Washington.Just thought it was interesting,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Still another example of why FS is so much better than the Real World. At least we can sightsee D.C. from the air without getting shot down!

That all seems so excessive for a 182, especially the way CNN covered the story. Personally, I feel bad for the pilot, it was most likely an honest mistake, but somehow this will all probably get twisted around to portray him/her as a common criminal.Scott

That all seems so excessive for a 182, especially the way CNN covered the story. Personally, I feel bad for the pilot, it was most likely an honest mistake, but somehow this will all probably get twisted around to portray him/her as a common criminal.NOT! It's big news when it happens, but we will here no more very shortly. The guy screwed up and screwed up in the worst place imaginable. ;-)) That's it.Lance

>NOT! It's big news when it happens, but we will here no >more very shortly. The guy screwed up and screwed up in the >worst place imaginable. ;-)) That's it. I admit that its a big mistake, and he's probably in a lot of trouble (understatement of the year), but the only reason it's a huge deal is because news broadcasters like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC make it that. Personally, I'm going to wait for the whole story before I make any more assumptions, but at this point im skeptical about a few parts of that story.Scott

Somebody crashed a light aircraft into the White House during the Clinton administration if I remember correctly.

Hi Scott,Thats an interesting comment... What is it about the story that you object to? I personally didn't see anything in it that jumped out as exceding the limits of factual reporting, but maybe I missed some finer point? It seemed impartial by me because they pointed out the incident was a probable mistake. They reported the pilot's contact with Flight Services for a weather update and his non-deviation from his flight path.Beyond that issue though, wouldn't you love to hear that initial contact with NORAD and the pilot's reaction? http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Yeah, and.... ;-)

Hi Elrond,Well, besides not being a big fan of CNN (I'm a Fox News person myself), I find nothing really wrong with the story, but more with the news in general. I've been quite annoyed by the way news covers stories since 9/11, but this was in a way, the straw that broke the camels back. It is presented in a very neutral manner, but my objection is really to the fact that one of the first points they jumped to was wether or not it was meant to be a terrorist attack. And, my gripes aren't really with the story, as much as the overreaction. I fail to see how a C182 would prove to be such a threat to the White House that it warrented evacuation, unless the pilot loaded his plane with quite a bit of C4 or some form of nuclear weapon, which, would be hard not to spot at one point.My discontent is mostly with people and the news in general as I said above, though. Ever since 9/11, if there is so much as an explosion, one of the first things that the news ever does is says something along the lines of 'At this time its assumed its NOT a terrorist attack.' One good example of that is an explosion in a jewlry workshop in Chicago not too long ago. It was covered for about two hours, the whole time the news dedicated themselves to uncovering if a terrorist was at work, or if it was merely an accident. Furthermore, I find it plain moronic that the country is probably spending millions of dollars to find out that this guy probably wasn't aware of the rule, and in the course causing tons of emotional distress.Also, I heard that this rule has been violated something like 93 times since it was enstated, which also makes me wonder, if that's true, why this person was singled out.Just my two cents, though.Scott

Doc................;-) ;-)

Yep ... a Cessna crashed on the White House lawn.Now, people may ask what's wrong with a little Cessna flying over the National Mall, but it wouldn't be all that hard for a Cessna to fly right into the Oval Office.

Let's not forget that during WWII kamikaze aircraft no bigger than a Cessna packed with explosives were capable of sinking warships. A Cessna piloted by a suicide bomber could certainly carry at least as much explosives as the Oklahoma bomb and look what that did to a six story building. It's not a light matter.Mike Stone

Not a light matter, but remember, nothing was found out of the ordinary. It was just a slip up.

I disagree, fighter aircraft in WW2 were quite a bit bigger than cessnas. They weighed a lot more and carried a lot more fuel. They also had much more payload capability. A cessna can only carry maybe anywhere from 500lbs to maybe 750lbs and that is including the passengers. The reason the Kamikaze aircraft did so much damage was mostly from the bomb they carried on their belly. A cessna could never fly with such a load. A cessna 152 only weighs 1100lbs total!! less than most cars! This aircraft was a 182 but still not very heavy. I would think to be a real threat to the White House the aircraft would have to be like a private jet or something like King Air. D. Griner