3 ms·

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 w

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...

elashri 4y ago
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-antiaircraft-missiles-at-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircr...
cjbgkagh 4y ago
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.
mannykannot 4y ago
> 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 4y ago

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-antiaircraft-missiles-at-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircr...

cjbgkagh 4y ago

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.

mannykannot 4y ago

> 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.