USAAF practices shooting down airliners...

[Blacksheep]

I was standing in line at the bank watching a CNN report about US fighters practicing to shoot down highjacked airliners. It occured to me that shooting down a highjacked airliner would once have been such a major event that the USAAF would never have contemplated doing such a thing. It was something only the Evil Empire did.

In a post-911 world it seems that the terrorists have the upper hand. Far from deterring highjackers, suicide fighters now have another possible scenario available to them - just highjack an airliner using the simplest of weapons, or even bare hands, and the Feds will create the massive fireball and kill hundreds of innocent civilians for you. With the A380 soon to enter service, one small group could create four or five hundred casualties at a stroke. Have we all gone mad?

[tvrfreak]

Any constructive suggestions?

[RUDAS]

if this is true that the USAF are practising to shoot down airliners,then you have to wonder whose interests the US government have in mind? Do they value federal buildings or other such establishments (which would presumably be targets for terrorists with a plane) more highly than the hundreds of lives on board?

i seem to recall a controversy around 9/11 about what caused UAL flight 93 to come down...if the USAF are prepared to shoot planes down,then it makes one wonder if the rumours so many of us discounted as impossible arent true?

[Beaver Driver]

--"the needs [lives] of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Spock
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn

I pray for all of our Airforce fighter pilots (and their leaders) that they never have to make that decision. And, I ask all that may judge them, or the leaders of this country, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? How would you reacte to a WMD (Jet full of fuel) flying towards London, Munich, Paris, or Rome, at high speed with known terrorists on board.

What would you do? Do the needs of the many in your country outweigh the needs of the few? Tell me how you would sacrifice the needs of thousands over the needs of a few hundred. Sounds callous doesn't it? Could you make a decision like that?

If you couldn't stand there at ground zero, with your family, and tell me that those on the jet were more important then you and the thousands around you, then you have NO right to comment. It's kind of like triage. Who do you save? The few hundred who are probably dead anyway....or the thousands who are not?

[126,7]

Do they value federal buildings or other such establishments (which would presumably be targets for terrorists with a plane) more highly than the hundreds of lives on board?



The planes each had less than 100 pax on board and the death toll was close to 3000 .

Its a tough decision but what are you supposed to do? I just hope that those cockpit doors stay locked and are as good as they are reputed to be.
The expert they were interviewing on CNN also said that the threat of a high-jack has deminished considerably. We now have to worry about explosives and poisons on board aircraft.......

[witchdoctor]

I hope to God that it never needs to happen, but if it does, that Billy-Bob at least manages to correctly identify his target.

Not got the greatest track record of hostile target identification.

[BOBBLEHAT]

I'm sure there will be no need for all that shooting down business.

Won't the terrorists have been dealt with by the air marshall on board, or shot by the armed flight crew?

[ORAC]

Pardon me for commenting on certain posters picking yet another opportunity to spout anti-american bile.

Everyone, UK, France and Germany included, is practicing such procedures. Read the threads about French intercepts and see here - Germany ponders shoot-down policy for hijacked airliners (http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/dq/Qgermany-attacks-air.RoLS_DSD.html).

A few years ago the presumption was that a hijacked aircraft would land and that negotiations would help free the passengers. That no longer applies. The assumption must now be that the aircraft will be used on a suicide mission and the passengers are being used to delay a response.

Anyone see the TV role playing show last week where those playing did nothing?

The only difference is that the Americans are more open about it.

[Blacksheep]

I observed that the world has changed and that the terrorists seem to have the upper hand. We are now obliged to contemplate what was unimaginable just a couple of years ago - shooting down an airliner to prevent it being used as a weapon to create even more casualties. Its not a matter of US world domination or an opportunity to throw insults about, I just made a sad reflection on the way the world is turning out. We of the Boomer generation dreamed that Love and Peace would come about when the walls came down. Now that the cold war is ended, things are even worse than before. Is there no way out of this mess? :(

[Drop and Stop]

Once an aircraft has been hijacked there can be no winners. There is a big difference between 100 dead and 1000 dead but outside those families affected the ramifications (politically etc.) will be largely the same.

[birdbrain]

Heard a rumour a number of years ago, which I immediately discarded at the time. Someone said that the USAF used commercials for simulated target practice - hence the rumour that one accidentally unleashed a missile that brought down a heavy into the sea after departure from JFK enr to EU...

Investigators later said it was an explosion of centre fuel tank due to faulty wiring...

[phnuff]

Not intended as a yank bash at all - I think I will just hope appropriate procedures are in place to only take a shoot down action as a last resort - and they work

I have often wondered what the orders were to the RAF in the event of a rogue airliner during the visit of Dubya last year. Shoot it down possibly over a heavily built up area like London or let it have a crack at the man?

I suspect I dont really want to hear the answer in case I dont like it.

[swamp150]

Heard a rumour a number of years ago, which I immediately discarded at the time. Someone said that the USAF used commercials for simulated target practice - hence the rumour that one accidentally unleashed a missile that brought down a heavy into the sea after departure from JFK enr to EU...

Was talking to an investigator of TWA incident two years back, he also saw remains of either KAL 007 or Iran Air (cant remember which ) but he said the damage was exactly the same with both aircraft....

[normally right blank]

Birdbrain forget the rumours. Read the report from the NTSB. Only the United States could afford the cost of that investigation. (They of course searched for bomb evidence as well!) Was it around the Olympics?.

The "third" (Sorry, "fourth"?) 911 airliner. F-16's were racing towards it. The good news were the "Let's roll" action. Passengers last ditch effort to re-take the aircraft. Sadly they died - but noone on the ground were killed.

Airliners as practice targets: A Japanese F-86 did that some years ago. He hit the airliner - with his aircraft! Wasn't that stupid?

And now consider all boys dreamjob of fighterpilot:

"Switching to guns!"

Best regards

[PlaneTruth]

No one has answered the question: What are the alternatives?

For starters, how about increased security and delay or cancel a flight if necessary? Air marshals may save the life of the rest of the passengers. As a last resort, arming the crew?

It has become a mad world indeed. These are the tough questions we have to answer when dealing with terrorism. THAT is why we in the US are so committed to this as a war, an actual war, which will stretch for the next 40 year or at least two generations. I will not sit quietly and let a madman in a cave on the other side of the planet dictate what I can or can not do. Like it or not, nature infers a heirarchy and this dog is on top and will not reliquish its position withiout one hell of a fight. Lead, follow or get out of the way. England has chosen to assist in what they realize is a threat directed at their way of life (whether all of the citizenry realizes it).

Back to those passengers on a plane which is highjacked: They are dead men (and women) sitting. Do you suppose the passengers will be released prior to impact? You are dreaming. Their lives are valueless as demonstrated by those who died while relaying events via cell phone on 9-11.

Recent intel indicates that the efforts by countries to take on Al Khaeda is having a dramatic effect. Two thirds of the leadership is arrested or dead and they are frustrated that they are loosing in Iraq. The world is actually safer now, in my estimation, than it was two years ago. And it is thanks to those who chose to take the hard road. We could simply hold , say Saudi Arabia hostage ourselves and put them on notice, "Allow more of your citizens to contribute to terror across the world and we will take out one of your cities, perhaps one by one until you get the message."

THAT is terrorism. And to the coallition's stregth. Despite the terror tactics used on our troops, the coallition chooses to fight this war along western conventions. War is hell. As one of our generals said a hundred years ago, "War is hell. One side can only inflict the maximum amount of pain on the other that they may change their will to fight." It is this will power that maintains the war. The coallition would pack for home in a month if it were not for this will. Aquiescence wil l only embolden them.

It is a mad world indeed. It is up to us to determine whether we want to allow this madness within our borders. A totally free society is impossible because TOTAL freedom breeds chaos. During a war, the populus must live under less than routine measures. In my mind it is a small price to pay given the alternative.

While we are more and more a "world society," it remains the choice of the citizens within each country to act in their own defense. I pray the rest of the world never experiences the attacks brought upon those countries that have seen the devastaion brought on my fanatical terrorists, as we in this country have.

PT

[normally right blank]

Swamp 150

What convinced me about the "natural" cause of the 747-accident, was a TV-program. A pilot saw! the explosion. He was given traffic information. When he saw the other, opposite, traffic he turned on his landing lights for a second (like "long beam" in a car?) as a courtesy to the opposing pilot ("I've seen you"!). As he did that the aircraft blew up!

(This procedure was unknown to me before).

Best regards

[OFBSLF]

No one has answered the question: What are the alternatives?Indeed. Instead, it is just the usual pprune slag-the-Yanks idiocy.

On Sept. 11th, the terrorists killed 3000 people, damaged billions of dollars worth of property, and seriously damaged the world economy. If our security fails again and an airliner is inbound towards the Sears tower in Chicago, what do we do? Sit by and watch the plane hit the building and kill thousands on the ground along with the passengers on the plane? Or do we shoot the plane down, saving the people on the ground?

The only security that works is layered security. Shooting down an airliner is the last, worst alternative.

Why would someone criticize the US Air Force for practicing for such an event? Would you rather they did not practice for it, and thus are unprepared if they face this situation in the future?

[Spearing Britney]

Shame that there are so many knee jerk reactions around. A negative comment about an American issue may be well meant, then a facile anti-american statement follows and the yank defenders mass - unable to stop themselves from rising above it :( Too much conflict around for us to add to it here!

[Ghostflyer]

As a civil driver now, I understand the worries of all the posters above. I'll try to paint the picture from the other side of the fence from my time. Some really good posts and a vaguely sensible discussion, I'll try not to screw it up.

Is the worry the practicing or the policy?! All air forces routinely practice to intercept aircraft, that is their job. Guess what, it doesn't mean whistling out bristling with rockets and bullets and closing to 100 yards before opening fire.

What happens is that an unarmed aircraft uses its radar to track another aircraft and look at the symbology without getting anywhere near the other aircraft. RVSM in Europe now produces exactly the same separation that fighters are limited by in training. Shadowing exercises are carried out routinely, fighter to fighter; there is not much need to go fighter to airliner for 2 reasons:

A. The fighters are much harder to shadow, so no training value would be gained from intercepting an airliner.

B. The fighters routinely intercept tanker aircraft before refuelling which look and behave remarkably like airliners. The waiting position on a tanker is in the same place as the unkown aircraft interception position.

Radars have been locked on to all sorts of targets since they were invented and will continue to be so. That is how fighter aircraft discriminate between the various blips on the radar to make sure that they are tracking the right target and to try to avoid inadvertently getting close to civil aircraft.

So onto the policy, a shootdown should be the last thing on the minds of most pilot intercepting a civil airliner with an armed aircraft. KAL007 was in Soviet airspace during the cold war when engaged by a russian aircraft. I cannot imagine the screw ups that went into robo-boat shooting down the Iranian airliner or the Ukranian incident last year! There have been others in areas with military tensions.

Outside of a war zone, a fighter pilot would not have the authority to autonomously shoot down an aircraft of any type. The ROE are stringent and the decision would come from way above his pay grade. Indeed, in my time, it was forbidden to select weapons or armament switches with an armed aircraft unless directed.

So what has changed? Obviously the US Government feels more vulnerable to terrorist attack since 911 and the will to act is greater. What would they do?

Initially, exactly the same as they have done for years. First they would leave alone aircraft complying with their flightplan in communication with ATC.

If it became apparent something was amiss, they would try to first contact the aircraft by radio on guard and last known freqs, then intercept it if deemed unknown and carry out the standard interception signalling. If I had been tasked to carry out that task, I would have been expecting to be providing assistance to someone in difficulties. You may remember that that is exactly what happened when the US golfer Payne Stewart's aircraft depressurised just before 911.

If none of that worked and it was apparent hostile action had been taken against the airliner from terrorists onboard, I would imagine that the likelyhood of offensive action taking place has increased as a result of 911.

Not saying what is right or wrong. Pointing out that I do not believe that the threat to an aircraft complying with its flightplan has significantly increased. However, if forced to deviate or in an emergency, I would start bleating on every frequency possible and remain as predictable as possible.

I know it isn't ideal but what can anyone expect giving the awful trageies that occured just 2 years ago. The US Goverment didn't screw the pooch it was 19 men and their AL Qaeda backers that precipitated what is now taking place.


Ghost:(

[normally right blank]

Ghostflyer.

Thank you for a most enlightening post. For a second I forgot that this is "The Professional Pilots R. N.". (Was just about to start the torches). It is really the best place to tell "outsiders". And it is disturbing to think about those issues. But just watching "the News" is also disturbing!


Best regards

[Diverse]

If the USAF feel they need to practice targeting airliners in the event they have to deal with that situation then fair enough. Mind you if they're being trained to hit fighter aircraft and enemy bombers they shouldn't need any greater skill or any more training to pop a missile into an airliner.

I may have misunderstood some earlier posts regarding the USAF practicing targeting actual operating airliners, if this is the case then they want their a**es kicking. There are enough aircraft left in the deserts of the USA to find a working one and go and practice on that. If I've misunderstood that then apologies.

[Danny]

I've already deleted at least 6 posts from this thread becasue, once again, a few posters are unable to get it into their brains that this is a discussion about the policy of the USAF and others of planning to shoot down a civilian airliner SHOULD the need arise! It is NOT a discussion about the politics of the US, the UK or anyone else.

As usual, it is the minority of posters who have some kind of inbuilt reflex that automatically enrages them so much that they launch into diatribes full of invective and anger about subjects that are actually very remotely peripheral to this topic. DON'T BOTHER as it will be deleted and you will have wasted your efforts. Try counting to ten and then think carefully about your response. :*

Try reading ORACs reply on page one and then plan a response if you must. As has been stated elsewhere, this is the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumours network and whilst I don't mind input and debate from anyone with an interest in our PROFESSION, I suggest that you will be wasting your time posting on here if I consider the content of your post to be UNPROFESSIONAL or immature/infantile. Please use Jet Blast, if you must, for personal rants about politics. (Although we retain the right to delete whatever we feel is not worth remaining on this website).

[Budgie69]

When we did hijack training in the 90's it was hammered into us that "the safety of passengers and crew is paramount". We were actively discouraged from having a go, or doing anything "foolish".

That has all changed. Any hijacked aircraft must be assumed to be hostile, especially now that a lone madman is very unlikely to be able to take over an airliner. Any responsible goverment must take precautions to protect its polpulace. That the its prime reason for its existance.

Whilst many of us on this side of the pond see armed skymarshals as an unfortunate extension of cowboy culture, it is really only a detail. We can argue furiously, but one hopes logically, about this particular precaution - and others (most of my posts seem to be censored).

However this board appears to be in danger of being hijacked by those espousing extreme views. There are plenty of other places for such rants - this is meant to be a pilots' network. Wittering on about casualities in Vietnam or the conduct of Saddam's thugs is not conducive to a sensible discussion.

[Diesel8]

Shooting down a airliner would obviously be ther very last resort and the decision to do so comes from the President and very high level goverment.

Whereas I felt very uncomfortable with the concept, I have also seen the lenghts to which ATC and USAF go to before any action is taken and I must admit to believing that it is a viable last action. I would not want to have to make that decision, but as someone else has pointed out, the good of the many.

I think the US has done a lot to deter hi jackers and while some of it some knee jerk and frustrates me, it has also brought increased safety.

I am surprised by the reluctance of other nations to use sky marshalls, which I consider to be a further deterrent!

(PS. Danny, do you know how long it took me to type the post you erased. You probably could have grown a beard:)

[malanda]

What are the alternatives?

There may be an idea here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3484277.stm

[tvrfreak]

How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.

If you are worried about the terrorists then killing all the other passengers, how about installing some "sleeping gas dispensers" in civilian airliners. Remotely activated, of course.

[Final 3 Greens]

How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.

Why not get Superman to ride on the tail and work the control surfaces with his Krypton vision?

[squire]

This must help make the flying public to feel reassured, the bus is begining to sound good!:=
So after you have been frisked, xrayed and had your possesions pawed. If you are lucky enough not to be hijacked you should also realise there is the chance that some suit does make an error and have the airforce blow you out of the skies.
Whoopee !!!!
Not many alternatives but still rather disconcerting.

[FOZ]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt that this is technically possible, even to the extent of having no flightdeck crew, but you would then be at the mercy of ground based technically minded terrorists who may be able to do more damage than before (and live to do it again).

I somehow think that an occupied flightdeck with a locked door is more preferable.

I also feel that it would be unlikely that a 9/11 type event would happen again in the near future as the suspicions of the crew and passengers would be aroused much earlier with "spur of the moment" action taken.

I'm afraid that today's terrorist is more imaginative and sadly will plot to carry out the act that no-one expects again-and we can't prepare for that.

[flufdriver]

In the spirit of searching for alternative solutions!

Some time ago I read something about "smart Guns" that could only be fired if the "owner" was holding it, I think it was some kind of palm print which served as the identifyer.

Perhaps the same Idea could be used with the controls of aircraft, which would only respond to the registered crew's inputs. There could be some initialising procedure when the crew for a given flight gets on board, all subsequent inputs would have to carry the "signature" of one or more of those crewmembers. in the event that inputs of non registered origin was being made, onboard control of the aircraft would be locked out and the aircraft would have to be "flown" to a safe landing from a ground position.

I realize that I am just rambling here, hoping to come up with something, it is clear to me that you could not just use a palm print, because individuals that are prepared to give their life for a cause, would not baulk at cutting off someones hand or eye, just to be able to carry out their plans.

[PlaneTruth]

New worry on the topic:

News reports today revolving around the BA cancellations identify another terrorist mode, one of decidedly desperate measures.

The aircraft would be overtaken by several confederates getting on a flight with a disassembled bomb (reassembled on the flight). The report indicated the bomb would be used to detonate the flight over populated areas or to distribute nuclear material (dirty bomb) across same.

I have posted the thoughts of some of the fighter pukes who may have to shoot at an airliner. I work with many these guys at my airline. They are all level-headed and ready to do the job should the need arise. Make no mistake: They are very good at what they do. None of them relish the thought, however. As airliner drivers ourselves, we know what it would be like to be on the receiving end. But to a man, we'd rather our bits be scattered in the farm fields short of an intended target than using them as more mass aimed at some undefended target full of civilians.

War sucks. That's why I support getting it over as quickly as possible.

PT

[calypso]

I would think that if you practice shooting down Mig's and f16's you shouldn't need that much practice to shoot down a b757? It is a bit lke saying 'SAS practices shooting down OAP feeding ducks'

[BigHitDH]

Ok, hypothetical question here.

Supposing a 911-style attck was attempted again, and the situation is much like the "Let's roll" aircraft.

The hijackers have managed to kill/incapacitate the flight crew and the sykmarshalls, but the remaining pax have overcome the terrorists and taken back control of the aircraft.

One passenger has a vauge idea of how to fly, and has a few hours in a single. Do the authorities still decide to shoot them down, because it's probably going to crash, better to do it in a field, rather than risk a much greater disaster?

I'm presuming here that no "remote desert facility" is within reach.

[av8boy]

I'd suspect that, once there is an indication that the aircraft is under seige, calling-off the shoot-down would be a tough sell. I'd guess that it would be difficult to convince the folks outside the aircraft that everything's once again OK inside the airframe...

[ATC Watcher]

quote :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think that if you practice shooting down Mig's and f16's you shouldn't need that much practice to shoot down a b757?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not the shooting down itself which is difficult but the interception and the correct identification of the target.
I would say training on this is definitively not wrong.

My view always was and still is, the more you practice the less chances of snafus. As I always say, in the KAL007, if the soviet fighter pilot had seen before the diference between a 707 and a 747 from below, a few hundred people might possibly sill be alive today.

As to the remote controlling of an airliner from the ground, Technically this is relatively easy . But even more easy is programming an aircraft to land somewhere ( on the ground long before it departs ), as the 2 global hawks UAVs currently stationned in Nordholz in North germany would tell you.
One of them flew direct from Edwards, California to Germany and even made the autonomous decision to perform a go around ( excessive cross wind ) before executing a perfect landing.

For those who do not know ,the global Hawk is about the size of an A318.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Well - its a similar span but more like a third the length and height...

If your ground station is controlling lots of airliners then hijacking, blowing up or disrupting the the signal will affect hundreds of airliners.

If your airliner is routinely and reliably landing itself without pilots on board then you'd better be very sure that nobody maliciously disrupts your ILS transmitters.

The safest, easiest and cheapest option is to have two splendid chaps, good at flying aeroplanes, personally at the controls of each airliner.

Cheers

WWW

[tvrfreak]

ATC Watcher, great info. Thanks!

Wee Weasley Welshman, agreed that it's generally best to have two splendid chaps in the cockpit. But I think we are talking about what back-up measures could be in place to protect those on the ground and those in the air, should these two splendid chaps be forcibly removed from the controls.

Fighter jets may or may not make it to the plane in time. They also may not shoot the right plane down in the dark or in crowded airspace, and they may even end up shooting the plane down over populated areas anyways.

Also, once it's decided to bring an aircraft down, there will be a massive reluctance on the part of "authorities" to withdraw from the "shoot-em down" stance as hinted at by av8boy and BigHitDC--there's not many people who would be willing to take the blame for another Sept. 11 type of disaster by making an incorrect judgement and recalling the fighters, even when there is significant doubt about who is controlling the plane. There won't be many survivors to refute the logic, flawed or not.

Ability to control the aircraft remotely seems to be a much cleaner solution.

[Blacksheep]

Now that's more like it chaps. We're finally getting somewhere...

[squire]

Considering that some airlines have decided to arm commercial aircraft it is also possible that fighters may have to engage armed commercial craft, Wow now its getting really interesting!:}

[Daysleeper]

Of course the fact that UAV's have a loss rate several hundred times higher than manned airliners should be of little concern to those under the flightpath or in the back :(

[ATC Watcher]

Very true daysleeper, but this is the begining of UAVs and they are learning extremely fast. The amount of reseach still done today to improve the system is phenomenal. Wait until you see the results of the " Access Five " task force.

(For those who do not know Access 5 is a team made of NASA, FAA, USAF and the US UAVs manufacturers : e,g Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop-Grumman etc.. the goal is to resolve within 5 years all the problems of navigation and integration of UAV in dense controlled airspace. )

UAVs is seen by many Generals as the future for everything , but if they ( and I foresee they will ) make their entry into the civilian market at one time or another, it will create a new problem of its own on the security field : .Hacking into an UAV program to " hijack" it could be done from a PC somewhere , in a anonymous way and would be probably easier to perform than boarding a flight with weapons and struggle with crews and/ or pax.

The moment you make a ( control) link between the ground and the aircraft, you open the possibility for someone to interfere or worse take over.

[BigHitDH]

UAV's are only as vulnerable as moden airliners to "outside interference". All it takes is a home made transmitter to skew the ILS, or similar. UAV or not, same effect, at least in low vis. If, of course, the weather permits you to see where you are going, I'd rather have 2 guys sat up front complaning about a duff ILS...

At least when UAV's the crash investigators will have a much easier job - it will always be controlled flight into terrain.

The answer as to how to make sure UAV's can't be hijacked from the ground is to make the totally autonomous, with no way to contol them from the ground. Just provide a plug for some guys laptop on the ground.

[Frangible]

Everybody seems to have forgotten that two F-15s were on their way to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11 when it crashed by itself. There was enough time since the first three impacts to take the decision to shoot UA93 down should it continue towards Washington. And the USAF pilots were even interviewed by BBC Panorama. The French scrambled their fighters with orders to shoot down the A300 hijacked by Islamists at Christmas 1994 should it deviate to Paris from its expected destination of Marseille. Put that together with the other Soviet and Israeli shootdowns of airliners in history and I think it's pretty clear that "doctrine" on airliner shootdowns is a lot older than 9/11/01.

[FJJP]

Lets get the perspective here. N American and European air defence fighters have been intercepting airliners for decades. Visual Ident procedures (VID) are routinely practised but for real unidentified airliners have been intercepted to verify their bona fides prior to entering national airspace. It's only one step further to conduct such ops over national territory.

The difference these days is that the prospect of shooting down such an airliner is a more likely proposition.

God help the fighter crews who have to carry out the [necessary] act - as has been said before, the needs of the many...

[birdbrain]

Lets pull back a bit here, instead of going the whole hog and blasting it out of the sky, what about disabling some of the control surfaces 30%, 40% or so to restrict manouverability therefore 'buying time'
The eventuality may be the same, but, if for instance turns to port were disabled a larger turn to starboard might be required to achieve desired target... initially turning away from target and adding possibly vital minutes for better decisions etc.
Perhaps even disabling starboard turn continuing on reaching 180 degrees from target....
I think there are possibilities other than big ball of flame !


Who said it'd be easy ?
possible is all I'm saying... have a think...

[ETOPS773]

I saw a report about this aswell and thought..where exactly do you shoot at??

Say a plane is heading over sparse countryside..towards a city 80/90 miles away at speed
No cities or population anywhere nearby. Would the procedure be to fire missiles at the fuselage,decompress it,the gun the wings / fuel tanks to finish her off at altitude..OR fire a round of cannons into each engine and turn them into a glider.

Would the latter be such a bad thing (give the pax and crew half a chance),and could it easily be done? or is it a choice,you either rip the aircraft to shreds or don`t touch.

I sure do feel for anyone in their fighter,who is told to shoot down an airliner.Must be horible,helpless feeling.

[corsair]

All things considered the hijack option is dead as far as terrorists are concerned. It is simply too difficult to take over an aircraft, you must overcome the passengers and crew and then break into the flightdeck armed with the something less dangerous than a a nailfile. I think the bomb or poison gas attack is more plausible these days. I am inclined to believe all these security scares lately are less hijack orientated and more bomb/gas attack/biological related. Destroying an airliner over a major city would have much the same effect as on Sept 11. That I believe is the real risk we face now. Just like Lockerbie and Air India and all the other bomb events. A bomb in the luggage, that's all it takes.
I find it hard to believe that anyone working in the business these days thinks a hijack is likely. Flight 93 ended all that. Leave it to the media and Joe public to keep that particular scenario going.

I'd suspect that, once there is an indication that the aircraft is under seige, calling-off the shoot-down would be a tough sell. I'd guess that it would be difficult to convince the folks outside the aircraft that everything's once again OK inside the airframe...

Although I've dismissed the hijack option I have thought about this and assuming I would be at the controls unless someone more qualified was on board. I think a suitably strong stream of anglo saxon invective aimed at the intercepting pilot would convince him I was legit. That and a bit of tight formation work of which Air Force and Navy pilots are justifiably proud, would soon apprise them of just who sits in the hot seat. Military pilots are not automatons. No airliner would be shot down as a distant bogey on a radar screen. It'll be up close and personal. Neither would it be 'shoot to disable' It would final and fatal if the order is given.

[maxy101]

Corsair You haven´t been to Bradford or Birmingham lately have you? You´ll find good old Anglo Saxon invective available in various dialects/accents. I think those innocent days are gone. If a pilot is naive enough to declare an on board "disturbance", it will be out of his hands as soon as the fighters are on station.

[OFBSLF]

Everybody seems to have forgotten that two F-15s were on their way to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11 when it crashed by itself.And there were F16s over Washington, DC with orders to "...protect the White House at all costs..."

Lets pull back a bit here, instead of going the whole hog and blasting it out of the sky, what about disabling some of the control surfaces 30%, 40% or so to restrict manouverability therefore 'buying time'I think you've been watching a few too many western movies. That's about as likely as shooting the pistol out of someone's hand...

[Blacksheep]

Well, we've had the shooting them down is all we can do argument and the pre-programmed or ground controlled UAV scenario. With the armoured cockpit doors the procedure in the event of a take over is presumably for the crew to abandon their flight plan and head for the nearest suitable airfield. Should the on-board protection be breached and high-jackers succeed in taking control, in the short term there isn't much that can be done apart from shooting a high-jacked airliner down - modifications of existing aircraft would be far too difficult.

My personal (avionics specialist) viewpoint looks at the long term - and make no mistake, this problem is going to be with us for many decades - auto-flight systems can easily be developed, using existing technology, that can be captured by military aircraft if required. Then, instead of shooting down an airliner and creating 'martyrdom' for some group of brainwashed loonies, the aircraft can be taken over externally and flown to a military base where the hijack situation can be dealt with in more traditional ways. They may be on top now, but there's no need for us to let these b*st*rds keep the upper hand by accepting the situation instead of using our brains...

[Diverse]

Just a thought here with regard to the remote controlling of a hijacked aircraft and the security of that. Could the said airliner be controlled from the fighter which is sent up to meet it. My fighter knowledge is very little but lots seem to have a pilot and a navigator could the navigator be trained to operate a short range (say half a mile) remote control and land the aircraft from that position?