F-16s Intercept Pilot, 75, in Restricted Airspace

[LadyTevar]

F-16s intercept pilot, 75, in wood-and-fabric plane called Winston

CHICAGO — Myrtle Rose was just taking a short flight over suburban Chicago when the 75-year-old aviation enthusiast looked out her cockpit window to see two F-16 fighter jets.

She assumed the military pilots were just slowing down to get a closer look at her antique plane.

It wasn't until she got on the ground that friends and the police told her the attention was much more serious — for straying into restricted airspace during a visit by President Barack Obama.

Rose, who tries to fly every day when weather permits, said she had been itching to get back in the air Wednesday after a number of days on the ground.

She normally uses her computer to check for any airspace restrictions, but it wasn't working properly.

"I hadn't flown in over a week," she said. "It was a beautiful afternoon." After some guests departed her home, she "just climbed in the airplane and left."

To make matters worse, "I didn't have my radio on. I was just flying around," she said.


'No excuse'
On any other day, the short flight would never have attracted notice. But Obama was in town for a fundraiser marking his 50th birthday.

"There's really no excuse for not knowing," said Lt. Col. Mike Humphreys, a spokesman for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which scrambled the two warplanes, a proposition that costs $9,000 an hour for each jet. "Anyone who flies an aircraft should know the restrictions."

Rose said she was about 30 miles from O'Hare Airport when her plane was intercepted. As the fighters appeared, she wasn't alarmed.

"I thought, 'Oh, well, they're just looking at how cute the Cub is," she said Friday in an interview with The Associated Press.

The blue-and-yellow plane had won a best-in-class award at the Oshkosh Air Show, a huge annual gathering in Wisconsin.

Another NORAD representative suggested that Rose had no business thinking that a military jet racing toward her had anything to do with the cuteness of her plane.

"The biggest thing to keep in mind is that when F-16s come screaming up to you, they are probably trying to tell you something," spokeswoman Stacey Knott said.

Rose, who has been flying since the mid-1960s and even performed as a wing walker until five or six years ago, said the jet pilots could not have been more considerate.

'Oh dear'
Though she never saw their faces — hard to do, she said, when she's puttering along at about 60 mph and the jets were doing what she figured was about 300 mph — she was impressed with the way the pilot who pulled in front of her kept his distance to avoid rattling her wood-and-fabric plane.

"He was very respectful," she said.

Rose returned to land on the airstrip at her home in the affluent South Barrington area. Her late husband owned Rose Packing Co., a meat packer that supplies Canadian bacon to McDonald's restaurants.

Once she was on the ground, some friends rushed over and told her that the rendezvous had nothing to do with the good looks of the plane named Winston. After the aircraft was in the hangar, her yard began filling with police cars.

Rose said she filled out a report with the Federal Aviation Administration, including a note describing how she mistakenly believed the jets were circling to admire her plane. She said she has not heard from the agency.

FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory said the investigation would probably take several weeks. Penalties could include a fine or a suspension of her pilot's license, or the agency might not take any action at all.

Rose, a Republican who said she did not vote for Obama, joked about mailing the president a note for his birthday.

"Oh dear, maybe I should send him a belated birthday card and say, 'You should have stayed home and Michelle baked you a birthday cake.'"

Rose said she does have a bone to pick with NORAD, or whoever released the information about her close encounter with the jets.

"The worst part is they put my age in there," she said. "I don't think that was nice."

[LadyTevar]

Can we list all the Wrong Things done here?

1. Did not try to get info on current flight restrictions.
2. Did not have radio on in cockpit.
3. Did not even realize the pilots were trying to bring her down.
4. Has no idea why she's in trouble, and is upset that the FAA put her AGE in the Report.

Personally, I think her age has a lot to do with this incident. That many mistakes when she's a long-time pilot? Something's wrong there.

[Purple]

Is it just me or is she treating her aircraft as one would a car you use for joy riding? I always thought you needed to take flight more seriously than that.

[NoXion]

Is it just me or is she treating her aircraft as one would a car you use for joy riding? I always thought you needed to take flight more seriously than that.

That gives me an idea of how someone could explain the seriousness of the matter to her - by analogy, imagine you were driving along the road in a small, old car, and they tried to get you to pull over... while driving a battle tank.

Of course, that assumes she actually thinks like that, I don't know the likelyhood that she's playing dumb.

[Simon_Jester]

Is it just me or is she treating her aircraft as one would a car you use for joy riding? I always thought you needed to take flight more seriously than that.

You do. She didn't.

I feel vaguely sympathetic, though, for two reasons:
1) I have a natural bias in favor of the dottiness of little old ladies, which makes me less inclined to go "GRAAAH!" about this than I would if someone else had done it.
2) I feel that the Professional Paranoid Security State which surrounds the president has gotten hopelessly out of hand- there have been empires, in ages where assassination attempts were far more common than they are today, which did not feel the need to guard their leaders so closely.

I'm sure it makes our presidents less likely to be assassinated, but there's a huge unexamined assumption lying in the middle of it- at some point, the idea that there is or should be a willingness on the part of the leaders of a republic to take risks got lost.

[Flagg]

What a stupid bitch. I can understand the not checking for restricted space even though it's not particularly responsible, but to have the radio off and the sheer audacity to think F-16 pilots are trailing you to admire your plane and then to get pissy with the FAA when she was 100% in the wrong? Why isn't this woman in a home? Or better yet, prison.

[Broomstick]

Can we list all the Wrong Things done here?

Did not try to get info on current flight restrictions.

That really is the worst thing she did. Especially with the current PotUS having a residence in Chicago. Obama's trips home have been wreaking havoc in the local skies since 2008.

Did not have radio on in cockpit.

If I have her location correct, in fact a radio is not required in that airspace. The details of it all are a little complicated, and I can try to explain if anyone is really interested, but lacking a radio is not inherently a violation. I've spent plenty of time in airplanes with no radios – including the airplane shown in my avatar, which I flew in the same area that this woman was flying when she violated the temporary restricted area which is only in effect when Obama is in Chicago.

Did not even realize the pilots were trying to bring her down.

People do fly by antique airplanes... but yes, F-16's are usually an indication you have done something wrong. It's equivalent to being pulled over by the state police on the highway. Review of interception procedures has been on the biennial recurrency menu since 2001, she should have known better.

Has no idea why she's in trouble, and is upset that the FAA put her AGE in the Report.

Old fashioned wealthy matron, probably.

Personally, I think her age has a lot to do with this incident. That many mistakes when she's a long-time pilot? Something's wrong there.

Nope, I think it's more a matter that she's been flying the back forty over farm country for... oh, 50 years now and it just didn't sink in that the rules have changed, even in rural areas. Barrington, Illinois has built up over the years, but it's on the edge of the cornfield country.

Just in case anyone is wondering – here is the lady herself and her airplane, a J-3 cub from 1941.



A J-3 Cub qualifies as a sportplane or microlight in much of the world. It's a damn small aircraft. The secret service hates them because they're so small and slow standard airport radar has trouble seeing them.

She probably didn't file a flight plan, either – but then, that's not required, either. I'm just surprised no one mentioned it.

Is it just me or is she treating her aircraft as one would a car you use for joy riding? I always thought you needed to take flight more seriously than that.

“Joyriding” is more or less the purpose of that sort of aircraft. It's possible to “joyride” in a serious, safe, and responsible manner. What deeper purpose did you suppose a private pilot has for flying?

What a stupid bitch. I can understand the not checking for restricted space even though it's not particularly responsible, but to have the radio off and the sheer audacity to think F-16 pilots are trailing you to admire your plane and then to get pissy with the FAA when she was 100% in the wrong? Why isn't this woman in a home? Or better yet, prison.

Again, that airspace normally has NO requirement for a radio even being in the plane, much less turned on. In fact, most J-3 Cubs don't even have an on-board electrical system capable of powering a radio, usually the pilots have a hand-held battery operated radio (one of the reasons I purchased one was so when I flew such airplanes I'd be able to have a radio if I desired instead of being restricted to no-radio-required airports). Hell, most of them don't even have electric starters, you have to hand prop them, they really can be very primitive. The interception procedures do not require radio contact because military airplanes usually do not carry carry radios compatible with civilian systems – in other words, even if both sides have a radio they don't have any mutally usable frequences so it's all by visual signals anyway.

No, it really was failing to check for restrictions that was her first sin. Even if you don't have a working computer it is possible to use a telephone to obtain this informaton. Back when I was still flying the stupid privitization of flight service sort of fucked that up, but really, the local airports are really anal about posting such restrictions and a call to the local airport can obtain that information for the area if you can't get through Flight Service. Actually, if you just watch the fucking news and hear Obama is coming to Chicago you should know they're slapping a 30 mile TFR over his location without being told.

I can't call up the TFR for Friday because it's no longer in effect, but if it's the usual one put up when Obama visits Myrtle Rose was right on the very edge of the zone. It's not like she blasted through the center of it. I think this may be a case of her either going by past TFR's (perhaps this one was shaped slightly differently) and assuming this one had the same borders as past ones when maybe it didn't, or genuinely, accidentally slipped over the line. She might be thinking that playing dumb will get her a better deal than saying “I'm sorry – I did slip over the line and I'll be more careful next time.” Personally, I think that's a flawed assumption on her part, but admitting wrong-doing, even unintentional, is a dicey proposition.

Fact is, a J-3 Cub isn't very threatening and even the secret service knows that. Small planes like this do bust restricted zones every year. Usually, if it's a first a offense, the pilot is issued a warning and perhaps has to get some retraining on looking up informaton and some flight time to make sure they still remember how to spot visual landmarks. Suspensions if it gets on the news. But really, the “ditzy broad” act, if it is an act, could backfire on her. If it's not an act then that's a different issue.

[Purple]

“Joyriding” is more or less the purpose of that sort of aircraft. It's possible to “joyride” in a serious, safe, and responsible manner. What deeper purpose did you suppose a private pilot has for flying?

You got me wrong. I have nothing against people flying aircraft for fun. God knows if I had the cash I would too. All I am saying that to joyride in an airplane should by all accounts be much more serious stuff than doing so in a car. You know, not just turn key and fly.

[Uraniun235]

Or better yet, prison.

Wow, really? I mean, you seriously think she deserves to lose years of her life for this infraction?

[CaptainChewbacca]

If she's trying to play 'scattered old lady' to get off then some judge might decide to pull her flight license altogether.

[Flagg]

Or better yet, prison.

Wow, really? I mean, you seriously think she deserves to lose years of her life for this infraction?

No, that was hyperbole along with not understanding flight regulations.

[Sea Skimmer]

They should give her a warning for being an idiot, and a bill for the 40,000 dollars it easily cost to fly a pair of F-16s after her.

[Broomstick]

“Joyriding” is more or less the purpose of that sort of aircraft. It's possible to “joyride” in a serious, safe, and responsible manner. What deeper purpose did you suppose a private pilot has for flying?

You got me wrong. I have nothing against people flying aircraft for fun. God knows if I had the cash I would too. All I am saying that to joyride in an airplane should by all accounts be much more serious stuff than doing so in a car. You know, not just turn key and fly.

Well, OK, handpropping an airplane is bit more serious (and dangerous) than starting a car... but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.

Actually, for a small plane kept protected in a hangar (not that I know if that's the case here) it almost is on that level of turn the key (if it uses a key - not all of them require that, some just have an on switch) and fly. Yes, there's the pre-flight but for a J-3 that's not very elaborate because there really isn't that much there.

What she really screwed up on here was the pre-flight information look up. If she's not getting her TFR's you start wondering if she bothered to check the weather, either, or what else she skipped over. It could be complacency settling in, always a risk for long-time pilots.

If I had a say in this I'd say suspend her license until she gets recurrency training in pre-flight planning, the equivalent of a biennial flight review - that's a minimum of one hour of ground instruction and one hour of flight, but that's the minimum, if you need more time to meet the requirements then it takes as long as it takes. The FAA could also mandate a higher minimum, say four hours of ground instruction (covering pre-flight planning in detail, especially how to find current information these days) and an hour or two of flight review. That's a fairly standard requirement for a pilot airspace screw-up, which is basically what this is, that harmed no one and doesn't really pose a hazard.

If age is an issue, then they can insist she undergo a new flight physical whether she's due for one or not to make sure that's not a problem. (I believe the oldest licensed in pilot int he US was 102 - hey, he was still able to pass the physical. I've known a couple pilots still active in their 90's, and they were required to get a new physical every 6 months)

[Zaune]

What a stupid bitch. I can understand the not checking for restricted space even though it's not particularly responsible, but to have the radio off and the sheer audacity to think F-16 pilots are trailing you to admire your plane and then to get pissy with the FAA when she was 100% in the wrong? Why isn't this woman in a home? Or better yet, prison.

Not necessarily. I don't know how common a sight military aircraft are in the area she was flying over, but it's not unheard of for a flight of fighters en route to an exercise or whatever to run a dummy intercept on a passing civilian aircraft. It's not even inconceivable that two very bored Air Force pilots on a long flight to Nevada would change heading slightly out of idle curiosity if they thought they could get away with it.

[Broomstick]

Military aircraft in the Chicago area are a common sight, and were even when the President wasn't making regular visits. During the Oshkosh Week (and slightly before and after) you get every sort of airplane showing up in the area, including, yes, military (we've even had space ships of a sort come through the airspace around here). In my student pilot days I flew into airports a couple times either ahead of or behind F-whatevers several times.

It's plausible the first though isn't "Oh, I'm being intercepted". It's when you notice that there are TWO of them flying in formation and they start signaling you that you realize yes, I have apparently Done Something Wrong and you are being intercepted. It is a formal procedure after all.

[LadyTevar]

I knew if I brought it up, Broomstick, you'd have the information to make sense of it. I was wondering if the FAA would have her checked out for physical/mental limitations on future flight.

[Broomstick]

You either pass the flight physical or you don't, they don't issue license with restricted privileges (well, there are day-only restrictions, but since this occurred in daylight anyway that wouldn't be applicable here).

There is a type of waiver used by handicapped pilots - for example, someone missing one or both legs - but you still have to be able to meet the flight standards even if you are using slightly unconventional means. For example, one-eyed pilots still have to perform landings and ground maneuvers to the exact same standards as pilots with binocular vision.

[Stark]

1) I have a natural bias in favor of the dottiness of little old ladies, which makes me less inclined to go "GRAAAH!" about this than I would if someone else had done it.

Does this include the racism part of crazy old people?

Broomstick, why isn't it a requirement to have a radio? Is there some kind of excuse, or is it just 'flight rules written in 1912'? You'd think they'd fix their retarded rules now. I guess shitty old planes might not even have an electrical system.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, why isn't it a requirement to have a radio? Is there some kind of excuse, or is it just 'flight rules written in 1912'?

That's some of it, bureaucratic inertia.

You'd think they'd fix their retarded rules now. I guess shitty old planes might not even have an electrical system.

Very true - many old planes have no electrical system. A few have been retrofitted, but that poses definite problems in something like a J-3 Cub, including actual safety issues. In that case, you're talking about an airplane so lightweight you can start a shallow turn merely by leaning far enough left or right, adding the weight of a radio up front can cause problems due to weight and balance issues. These aren't insurmountable, but they're serious enough you wouldn't want an amateur trying it.

More and more, pilots with such ancient airplanes are opting to purchase small hand-held radios, they just aren't required unless you're flying into certain types of airspace.

It's the airspace that drives the radio requirement. If you're flying into an airport like O'Hare yes, absolutely, you MUST have a radio (along with a few other bits of equipment). The density of traffic is such that safe traffic control requires that sort of thing.

But just as some road intersections have complex traffic lights and others a mere stop sign, not all airspace is filled with airplanes. Quite a bit of the US is sparsely populated, and if you're not flying in the airspace used by commercial airplanes the quantity of air traffic is more like a seldom-traveled rural road than a busy city intersection. For low traffic areas involving small, slow airplanes you don't need a radio any more than you need a radio to safely get on and off and travel highways.

Because airspace is three dimensional, altitude is an important factor. In the US, you are, in fact, required to have both a working radio and transponder above 18,000 MSL no matter where you are. If you fly lower, there are many places you don't need a radio. Around urban areas the "ceiling" for no-radio may range from 18,000 feet MSL to as low as 1,200 above the ground, or even lower in some cases (though much lower isn't safe in many areas whether you have a radio or not).

It would not surprise me, given how small and powerful handheld transceivers have become, if at some point pilots are asked more and more to carry such handhelds rather than mandate the older planes be retrofitted with radios and the necessary batteries and electrical systems. It's a much cheaper solution, and avoids some of the pitfalls of installing a permanent radio on the airplane.

[erik_t]

The amount of hyperbolic nonsense in this thread is staggering. This was a serious error, worthy of some nonjudicial punishment on the part of the FAA, but one could easily be lead to think that most posters here have an expectation of pilot infallibility.

[Simon_Jester]

1) I have a natural bias in favor of the dottiness of little old ladies, which makes me less inclined to go "GRAAAH!" about this than I would if someone else had done it.

Does this include the racism part of crazy old people?

If I'm dealing with a ninety year old man who starts expressing racist sentiments, believe it or not, I am not going to flip out to the degree I would hearing the same shit from a twenty year old.

A twenty year old who mutters ethnic slurs and wishes they'd get out of his town is basically a Nazi. There is no other coherent explanation for his behavior.

A ninety year old who does the same thing may be, basically, a Nazi. Then again, he may just be a petrified jackass who hasn't heard a new idea he's liked in fifty years. Both of those are coherent explanations of his behavior, and from my admittedly limited experience, the second one is probably right.

A petrified jackass is still a jackass, but a jackass is better than a Nazi.

See, I don't like such behavior, I don't approve of it, but that doesn't mean I'm as hard on it as I would from someone I hold to higher standards. That's what it comes down to- I hold some people to higher standards than others.

Broomstick, why isn't it a requirement to have a radio? Is there some kind of excuse, or is it just 'flight rules written in 1912'? You'd think they'd fix their retarded rules now. I guess shitty old planes might not even have an electrical system.

The plane may still fly just fine; it's a question of installing the extra X pounds for electrical system and radio.

[ComradeClaus]

[Just in case anyone is wondering – here is the lady herself and her airplane, a J-3 cub from 1941.



A J-3 Cub qualifies as a sportplane or microlight in much of the world. It's a damn small aircraft. The secret service hates them because they're so small and slow standard airport radar has trouble seeing them.

She probably didn't file a flight plan, either – but then, that's not required, either. I'm just surprised no one mentioned it.

[quost of them don't even have electric starters, you have to hand prop them, they really can be very primitive. The interception procedures do not require radio contact because military airplanes usually do not carry carry radios compatible with civilian systems – in other words, even if both sides have a radio they don't have any mutally usable frequences so it's all by visual signals anyway.

Fact is, a J-3 Cub isn't very threatening and even the secret service knows that. Small planes like this do bust restricted zones every year. Usually, if it's a first a offense, the pilot is issued a warning and perhaps has to get some retraining on looking up informaton and some flight time to make sure they still remember how to spot visual landmarks. Suspensions if it gets on the news. But really, the “ditzy broad” act, if it is an act, could backfire on her. If it's not an act then that's a different issue.

What's that teddi bear in the front seat wearing, a pillow?

Err, military planes don't have radio compatible w/ civillian radios?! What the hack is the FAA/Pentagon thinking?! How hard would it be for the Air Force to request radio manufactures to make radios that are civ compatible?

So, the Secret Service isn't too concerned by J-3 Cubs. Quick question, how many lbs of "mayhem" could a troublemaker pack into one & still have it fly? It looks like a 2 seater, so 1 pilot+ ~ 200 lb? That would make quite a missile in the wrong hands. I mean if Al-Qaeda smuggled C-4 into the US & stole one of those J-3s, it could be a real sticky situation.

But I don't think she should have to pay a fine for the cost of those jets being scrambled, they need rl experience anyway. Besides, after the Republicans bankrupted social security & medicare, she doesn't owe the feds a damn thing. My poor grandma is in her late 70s & still hasn't retired, cause of all that.

[tim31]

I find it hard to believe that military aircraft are incapable of transmitting in UHF.

[Broomstick]

What's that teddi bear in the front seat wearing, a pillow?

Flight jacket, WWII style. Imitation leather with a sheepkskin-like collar. When I was in the hospital a few years ago my Other Half bought me one to keep me company. They're cute.

Err, military planes don't have radio compatible w/ civillian radios?! What the hack is the FAA/Pentagon thinking?!

Wasn't an issue until the government got a bug up its ass about small airplanes after September 11, 2001. Military and civilian radios operate on different frequencies. Why, I don't know, probably some historical accident. Around Washington, DC they switched from fighter jets to helicopters for interception small, slow planes and started equipping them with civilian-band radios. Especially after one incident where a guy in an intercepting helicopter wound up writing instructions on a large piece of cardboard and holding it up for the interceptee to see. The number of intercepts in the DC area pushed for that change there, but outside of DC intercepts aren't particularly common and the visual signals work well enough, so there isn't the impetus to bother with new radios, I guess.

How hard would it be for the Air Force to request radio manufactures to make radios that are civ compatible?

No clue - probably no more and no less difficult than the military procuring anything else.

I do acknowledge this is, on a certain level, a gross stupidity. Nonetheless, it is what it is.

In any case, there still has to be visual signals because even if an airplane takes off with a working radio said radio might cease functioning while in flight.

So, the Secret Service isn't too concerned by J-3 Cubs. Quick question, how many lbs of "mayhem" could a troublemaker pack into one & still have it fly? It looks like a 2 seater, so 1 pilot+ ~ 200 lb? That would make quite a missile in the wrong hands. I mean if Al-Qaeda smuggled C-4 into the US & stole one of those J-3s, it could be a real sticky situation.

Your average sub-compact car would make a much more effective vehicle bomb. The cargo you can carry depends on the weight of the pilot and how much fuel you take on, but yes, in theory you put some Bad Stuff in the front seat. Heck even without Bad Stuff if you're out standing in a field and one flies into you it can kill you. Hey, you could strap on a C-4 vest, get into a crowd to shake the President's hand, and blow yourself up that way, too. There's nothing inherently special about airplanes that size that makes them any more or less dangerous than other vehicles.

Missile? Please - fully loaded that thing would be lucky to break 65 mph. Well, OK, I suppose you could set it up into a dive but when you reach 87 mph the airplane starts to come apart.

Terrorists don't use Piper Cubs as weapons, they use cars loaded with ANFO. If you flew a Piper Cub into the side of a building you might scratch the aluminum siding or paint or whatever, and the Cub would crumple like a stepped on paper cup. For that matter, during the Clinton years someone flew a Cessna 172 - an airplane about three times heavier and half again as fast - into the side of the White House. Killed the pilot, crushed the airplane, they just had to paint over the scrapes and repair a little bit of the turf next to the building. Is the risk zero? Of course not. But realistically it's damned small.

The biggest hazard with an F-16 intercept of a J-3 is that the wake turbulence from the bigger plane can literally rip the smaller one apart if the fighter jet gets too close. Military jets have accidentally destroyed small planes in that manner.

[Zaune]

Err, military planes don't have radio compatible w/ civillian radios?! What the hack is the FAA/Pentagon thinking?! How hard would it be for the Air Force to request radio manufactures to make radios that are civ compatible?

I wondered about that myself, actually. Shouldn't the ability to monitor and broadcast on the International Distress Frequency be a fairly basic requirement for any interceptor aircraft?

And in fairness to the Secret Service, a J-3 or similar light aircraft might not be much use for ramming, but there's nothing to stop a terrorist using one as a bomber. They wouldn't even need to go to the trouble of cooking up an IED, a couple of hundred pounds of bricks would do the job.