NOTICE: The page below has been permenently FROZEN as of January 2000. Due to resource limitations, this section of our website is no longer maintained, so some links may not work and some information may be out of date. We have retained this page for archive reference only, and we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Broken links will not be repaired, and minor errors will not be corrected. You are responsible for independently verifying any information you may find here. More Info
|
From: campbell@ufomind.com (Glenn Campbell, Las Vegas) Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 13:26:05 -0800 |
Re: http://www.ufomind.com/misc/1998/may/d04-001.shtml >There may have been a serious airspace violation Sunday afternoon. >Aircraft were possibly dispatched out of Nellis and McCarran to >intercept a small civilian aircraft buzzing around the complex and the >box........including the facility. A little more serious than the >average intrusion. Aircraft was chased west past Tonopah by a KingAir >out of McCarran (Janet ramp). Might be interesting if you investigate >it a little. Not sure of the outcome. The intruders tail number were >not yet known. Please leave this message anonymous. > >[I can't figure this one out. It is one of the many dubious messages >I recieve. I would have thrown it out if it did not coincide with the >message above. I can't imagine a KingAir being used to chase anyone. >All interceptions I have heard of involve fighter jets. --GC] ----- 2 Responses Follow. Reformatted by Moderator. ----- Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 08:21:27 -0700 From: Rich McIntosh <Rich.McIntosh@ci.sj.ca.us> Subject: Airspace Intrusion Your comments regarding the airspace intrusion are valid. Using a Kingair as an interceptor just does not wash. The Kingair is designed to carry passengers and while it is a turboprop (propeller hooked up to a turbine) and reasonably fast as compared to a small piston driven aircraft, "scrambling" one from McCarran is not gonna get the job done especially with the resources available in the immediate area. If they can get a Blackhawk helicopter to respond as a normal security measure for land intruders then a couple of F-16's to track down an airborne threat is easily done. The time just for the Kingair to get from McCarran to the area is way too long. Also the airborne radar required to find an intruder is what an F-16 is designed for. Exactly the opposite for the Kingair. This intruder report may be coincidental or perhaps a bit of disinformation just to muddy the waters? ======================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 09:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Interceptions From: CatshotKim <CatshotKim@aol.com> As a "bug- smasher" pilot, specifically Cessna 152s, I can certainly see the utility of carrying out an intercept on a general-aviation plane with a Cessna Kingair. The key is the operating speeds of the aircraft involved. I can safely operate the 152 at speeds as low as 50 knots. Try doing an intercept on me with an F-15 or -16 and the air farce pilot would see me briefly as he zips by at no less than 150 knots. The stall speeds (speed at which the wing stops producing sufficient lift) of fighters make them ill- suited to intercepting bug- smashers. They just can't fly slow enough to accomplish anymore than scareing the offender. They probably wouldn't even have time to clearly make out the registration number. The Kingair gives them the ability to fly relatively fast to catch the guy, and relatively slow to make an ID or force the guy to obey instructions. I believe the Customs Service and DEA uses similar aircraft in their anti- drug campaign for those very reasons. Kim Keller +--------------------------------------------------------------+ | UFOMIND MAILING LIST | | Supporting the World's Largest Paranormal Website | | www.ufomind.com Moderator: Glenn Campbell | | | | Archived at: http://www.ufomind.com/misc/ | | Submissions to: ufomind@lists.best.com | | "unsubscribe"/"subsingle" to: ufomind-request@lists.best.com | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ RELEVANCE OF THIS MESSAGE: response to previous
|
Created: May 5, 1998