Shooting Down Civilian Airliners

[VH-GRUMPY]

Now I have been a bit worried ever since 11 September about the legality of a military pilot being tasked to track and shot down an errant commercial airliner.

The scenario I see is a B737 which may or may not have been hi-jacked but is now ignoring all ATC contact and is heading strait for, say, Westminster Palace - a Tornado or some sucg thingy is told to intercept it.

It doesn't respond to any contact including the old 'wing waggles' and someone says shoot it down.

Some young (by my standards) pilot is going to have to do what the Russians did to KA007 and push the button. Now I also imagine that the flaming wreck with hit the ground somewhere in central London, Paris, Brisbane, Berlin or whatever and cause incredible carnage and disruption on the ground.

Seeing we see CAP cover aircraft from time to time over our cities - certainly during the Commonwealth Heads of Governement Meeting in Coolum (Queensland) and when George W visited Canberra one must ask and what happens after you hit the button?

Just wondering.

:confused:

[Widger]

After you hit the button it goes bang woooooooooooooooossssshhhhhh!You don't really expect anyone to engage with you on this do you?A Salaam a Likkum by the way!

[Maple 01]

I think rams push the missile away from the airframe first....then WOOOOSH!

[Ivan Rogov]

Definitely one for a QWI to answer!

.................................I'll get my coat then :\

[ORAC]

Shot at over London and keeping it flying until central Brisbane. Now that´s what I call a good bit of flying. Including the refuelling stops on the way. :}

[Wyler]

My job involves looking at, and practising for, these very events. Suffice to say a lot of time and effort goes in to planning for every possible contingency. The BBC did a nice little piece a few months back on the heirachy involved and the procedures. We, the RAF, are only acting as an aid to Civil Power, National Security as coined from our Spam friends. I am not going to add to that.
One more thing. If it gets to that kind of decision, I can assure you it will not be left to a QWI, FC or ATC. That is a decision that can only be made at the highest levels of Government (whether you like it or not!).

[Navaleye]

You mean El Presidente? Will he have time to talk to God first?:rolleyes:

[Wyler]

If you mean Alistair Campbell, probably.:E

[chevvron]

Well Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have had second thoughts; has Tony Bliar got the b***s to actually make a decision without giving reasons and second choice? I think not somehow.

[GengisKhant]

Thought Alistair Campbell WAS God!!!! He appears to think so......!

[Gainesy]

El Presidente? Will he have time to talk to God first?

Thought he had God on permanent "Hold".:hmm:

[BEagle]

Yes, the missile motor will fire and the appropriate guidance system will steer it towards its unarmed civilian target.

An IR missile will probably hit an engine.

An active or semi-active missile will probably hit the most radar significant part of the target.

The unarmed civilian aircraft will probably suffer a total in-flight structural failure and will then become uncontrollable. Those passengers not thrown out at the time will then die screaming as the remains of the airliner hit the ground. As will all the terrorists.

The interceptor crew will go home for tea, debrief - and years of lingering self-doubt.

Pompous politicians, media personalities and fat cat lawyers will then debate the incident from nice warm, safe TV studios and offices for the next dozen years or so.









Not very nice, is it?

The alternative is to lock the flight deck door, carry armed sky guards to blow any terrorists away at the first sign of aggression and for the pilots to learn how to fight the aircraft, rather than waste time with any huggy-fluffy 'co-operative' nonsense.

That's what El Al did in the Dawson Field hijacking in the '70s, no terrorist low life scum have dared to try it on with them since.

Only Germany has had the courage to announce that the planned shoot down of civil airliners will never be contemplated over their territiory.

[civobs]

what would be the chances of the pilot landing up in court at some point?

[Gary Lager]

Depends where the shootdown occurred really, but I'd say just as much chance of the pilot landing incourt as any of the passengers, or the drinks cart, or indeed other flaming bits of wreckage...:E

[Stafford]

As long as the instruction doesn't come from the Met. :E

As for me, I'd shoot it down in a heartbeat. The Chardonnay on BA is total crap these days.

[airborne_artist]

The Chardonnay on BA is total crap these days

And with the CC retiring age being raised to 65, it'll soon be a totty-free zone as well - bad luck for Nigel :E

[Wyler]

No, the aircrew would not end up in court. The procedures and organisations involved are designed not only to get the necessary job done but also to afford protection to those directly involved.

It is not only the pilot who would need to ponder, there are a lot of other people directly involved and my thoughts are also for the ones who have to make the call, not just carry it out.

And despite what certain retired armchair experts may think, this is not a tactical, military led, operation in any way shape or form. The military is an aid to civil powers and very much at the bottom of a very long food chain in this instance.

Again, the BBC programme on this subject was very good at putting things into perspective.

[Widger]

Wyler stop rising to it and being so serious. Anyway to the question, the bang is the rocket motor firing, then you get the woosh!

[Wyler]

More like a dull thud, fumes in the cockpit, PAN declared and RTB.:p

[Pierre Argh]

Interesting debate recently from Germany, where their high courts have reversed an earlier judgement ... so it is now illegal for a German military pilot to shoot down a high-jacked passenger aircraft. Convaluted arguements, but basically they revolve around "dignity even in death" and that a Government does not have the right to kill citizens... even if in so doing so it might save more lives... because it makes them no better than the terrorist (think about the 4th 9/11 aircraft, where the passengers were almost successful in over-powering the high-jackers?) Discuss, answers in less than 500 words by wednesday

PS. having used the words "shoot", "high-jack"(twice), "passenger aircraft", "terrorists" and "death" in this post, I'd just like to say high to the FBI

[PPRuNeUser0211]

pierre, having used "High-jack" as opposed the more traditional spelling of the word.... I reckon you're safe!

[boswell bear]

What if the Hi-jackers are ex Mil Aircrew?

They could jettison the obese children of the passengers as decoy for any SA missles deployed and or jettison of the Hot Towels and inedible Hot meals to take care of the IR threat.

...............and you bolder lot can forget going for the gun solution as we all know a well flown B737 can out ACM a F3 Tonka, besides the crew would probably get lost in the urban jungle anyway:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=111204

[civobs]

wyler - thankyou. it seems perfectly reasonable and obvious, but then so do many other things. i wonder would this protection stand in the case of possible civil suits?

widger - i assure you i'm not trolling:)

assuming the intercepting aircraft was not a typhoon, would a couple of shots be fired across the bow or perhaps into the fuselage as a sort of wake up the pax effort, just in case?

[Wyler]

I suspect the fallout would go on for years and years. That's why you would need a pair of really big hairy ones to make the call.

[Sergio555]

I suspect the fallout would go on for years and years.

Oh, not that much. The fragments probably hit the ground sooner... :}

[wg13_dummy]

I suspect the fallout would go on for years and years. That's why you would need a pair of really big hairy ones to make the call.

Who mentioned nooklear mizzles?

(The FBI will really be interested now). :uhoh:

[threepointonefour]

Wyler,

Your info is not quite correct regarding a number of issues, but the facts are not for open forum anyway.



Mods;

This topic is perhaps a bit too close to the mark to remain on the forum.

Just my twopenneth.

[Rick Storm]

VH-Grumpy
I doubt they would just send up one intercept a/c. pilot refusal (of order) scenarios would be taken/have been into account in this situation. e.g. Maybe one or more of the pilots familly may reside, work in the area of possible crash site, coupled to the fact that no RAF a/c (in modern times) have shot down a UK reg civillian a/c killing fellow countrymen. Now, if the a/c was Russian/Chinese/Israeli that might prove more problems.

CIVOBS
There would be no chance of the pilot being in court, he would be covered by Crown Indemnity.

RS

[Radar Muppet]

3.14

Entirely agree. This thread has serious phishing, a lot of bolleaux being written and, were correct facts stated, would be way into the realms of the OSA. Mods, please do the decent thing and end it now.

Thanks.

[threepointonefour]

3.14
Mods, please do the decent thing and end it now.
Thanks.

He means the THREAD !!! (I think?)

I crack me up!

[The Real Slim Shady]

You military gungho b*sta*rds come near my 737 and I'll throw chaff at you.
Well, sandwiches out the back door, but they can do you a nasty :uhoh: :uhoh:

[Flatus Veteranus]

If I were the (un)fortunate Tornado pilot I think I would hold out for a peerage (or at least a knighthood) before pressing the tit. Attendance Allowance at the Lords would help pad out the pension!

[Wyler]

So, I've been wrong for the last 2 years then?

Agree, this thread is prodding areas it should not.

[SASless]

What if yer flight lead refused to pusht the tit....would you shoot him down first then the bus or the other way around?

[Dogfish]

SASless,
what have you started? Reading some of the replies to this thread give me a sudden urge to open a vein. You worry to much, can't we talk about somthing more cheerful? :)

[frodo_monkey]

I agree wholeheartedly with 3.14 - those of us who do need to be concerned with this particular scenario are highly-trained and pretty damn good at it... The rest of you, tough t*t, thats what the 'need to know' principle is all about, so please stop speculating.
That is all :E

[Big Unit Specialist]

Crown Indemnity...... no such thing now!:uhoh:

[civobs]

my apologies. in light of issues arising regarding servicemen potentially being charged elsewhere, i was curious about the consequences of these actions - cheers.

otherwise, no answer expected, i was merely proving to widger i'm not trolling.... :E

[Ivan Rogov]

Don't close the thread. I don't think there has been any breach of OSA or SOP's on this thread, all that I can see is "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer".

Totally agree that if anything too close to the knuckle is posted then any thread should go, indeed I have been surprised how long some have been allowed to run, (suppose you can argue that deleting it would confirm the info, but what's to stop someone speculating until they get it deleted).

It's been said plenty of times before, this is a public forum and you must assume that everyone is reading it. Everyone current or Ex Mil. is professional enough not screw up on here, I hope.

Those that know the answers know not to say anything at all sensible in reply, situation normal!

[PPRuNe Radar]

The CAA publish a leaflet on 'Interception Procedures'.

Anyone who needs to know the procedures should maybe read that ?

There is the occasional chance (a few times a month) that a Mil pilot who breaches CAS might take out a civilian aircraft. It's a more likely scenario than a shoot down !!!

[WhatsaLizad?]

Seeing we see CAP cover aircraft from time to time over our cities - certainly during the Commonwealth Heads of Governement Meeting in Coolum (Queensland) and when George W visited Canberra one must ask and what happens after you hit the button?
Just wondering.
:confused:

My guess is that despite several thousand people witnessing such a tragic event, numerous websites, along with a best selling French author, will say that it was actually a remote control missile directed by the Zionists.:E

500,000,000 million people will also formulate some twisted logic rationalizing that although they don't agree with the act, the passengers and their country somehow deserved it.

[Load Toad]

I've never really understood this whole 'shooting down hijacked airliners' thing. Like for a start - when do you decide to shoot it down? Here we go - a plane is hijacked and the terrorists politely tell us they are on their way to a 'very important place'. At the very important place they will crash the plane and cause carnage and stuff.

Or perhaps they won't phone us up and tell us where they are going & what they are going to do. I dunno - terrorists eh - can't rely on them.

So a plane, full of innocent people is hijacked - whatever - someone notices the plane is not responding and it is veering off course. Now if a very important place is nearby I'll assume that the plane is already over inhabited areas with innocent people going about their innocent lives. So - not knowing exactly what the hijacked plane is going to do when do we shoot it down (thus killing all the innocent people on the plane and maybe innocent people on the ground)?

Nice call that.

As I understand when something is shot down it - falls to the ground (gravity is a bitch) - which area of the country should we allow the plane to fall on? Are the innocents of city X of greater value than the innocents of city Y? And what right has The Country got to take the lives of innocent people? Its own innocent citizens? 'Dear Mr. LT, Sorry dear citizen but as the plane you were on was hijacked we are going to kill you before the terrorists do. Sorry and all that - hope you filled in your tax return. Thanks, All the Best, The Queen & her Elected Government.'

This is a no brainer. You can not shoot the plane down even if it is clearly being 'aimed' at a very important place.

When did this whole 'shoot down the hijacked plane' bollox start? On CNN by some armchair bound Terry F_ckwit commenting on the Twin Towers tragedy after 9-11?

[ORAC]

B*gger the civvies, them Jags better watch out while they're still around. The boys need some more practice.... :E

[VH-GRUMPY]

I posted this thread last night (Australian Eastern Standard Summer Time) and I see this evening there are 41 replies. I like WIDGER'S - 'you don't really expect anyone to engage with you on this.'
Well mate I did and many did. I'm not interested in the 'smart ars**' comments but I am pleased some respondents took my question seriously. It is an issue which has concerned me when I drive past my national Parliament during a George Bush visit and I can hear an F/A 18 doing its thing. I know why its there and people have a right to ask and what will it do if ......?
I'm was not suggesting that the pilots would be held accountable -and I am well aware of the challenges and procedures which would be applied. I certainly feel terrible about what the pilot would go through and I would hope he or she would get proper support after the event.
I was more wondering about whether or not a government can actually legally pass legislation which makes it OK to kill their own innocent civilians including men women and children to stop say crazies (who might be home grown) crashing a plane into a building. I also wonder about the logic - you know, you didn't kill anyone you stupid bastar** - we did! I can't see what is achieved.
I should say that I have a background in government (Federal), aviation safety and was a member of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Task Force in 2001 (when the towers were hit) and at Coolum when a decision was made to put up F/A18s with surface to air missles.
I don't believe that these of decisions of government should go unchallenged.
I'm off now - but thanks for your views on this one. They were from the sublime to the rediculous to helpful and thoughtful.

[Wyler]

For the record, there is no information on here, in the form of sensible answers, that even comes close to breaching sensitive information. Inappropriate questions have not been answered. It is obvious that the actual subject matter causes very strong feelings in different individuals, but that is a different matter (and no surprise).
The MOD made a decision last year to bring all this out in the open and publicise their 'policy' for want of a better phrase. That is why they invited the BBC to produce a segment that actually lasted 25 minutes. They were given access to all areas. Highlights from this were shown on Prime Time TV and went into far more 'technical' detail than I have on here.
So, their policy to provide a means of 'dealing' with what they consider to be a real threat from terrorists using civvy airliners is already in the public domain. Much the same as the Police have let it be known they have a shoot to kill policy.
Any journo's on here will be getting second hand information.
Whether or not this is a suitable subject for Pprune, well that is up to those who use and contribute, and the MODs of course. Again, lots of mixed feelings.
I for one hope that this polcy is never ever used in anger. It is the stuff of nightmares but, hopefully, the deterrent value is sufficient.

[Widger]

Wyler,

No it's not "up to the MODS". It's up to people like you to stop posting ANY information on this subject on a public forum and allow those in DCC to decide what is fit for public consumption. My comment at the second thread was a subtle hint to get those like you not to rise to the questions!

Regards!

[nutcracker43]

Wyler and all those advocating that the thread be shut down for the reasons stated. Get over yourselves, please...you are trying to make yourselves more important than you really are.

Thank you.

NC43

[Tombstone]

Wyler and all those advocating that the thread be shut down for the reasons stated. Get over yourselves, please...you are trying to make yourselves more important than you really are.
NC43

Isn't that part of a Fighter Controller's job description???:p

It is a silly subject to be ppruning folks, small segments here and there add up to a big picture.

[The Rocket]

I should say that I have a background in government (Federal), aviation safety and was a member of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Task Force in 2001 (when the towers were hit) and at Coolum when a decision was made to put up F/A18s with surface to air missles.

Well I'm amazed that Australia now have F/A-18's armed with SURFACE to air missiles.:eek:

Seems that the top secret switch to a new policy of Ultra low level intercepts has been leaked out by a reputable member of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Task Force!

Seems Wyler was correct in wanting the thread shut down before any bombshells appeared!!:p

[threepointonefour]

Wyler and all those advocating that the thread be shut down for the reasons stated. Get over yourselves, please...you are trying to make yourselves more important than you really are.
Thank you.
NC43

As a rotary pilot I'm sure you're fully versed in the relevant operation? Thought not.

Those of us who believe that this isn't really for open discussion may well know what we're talking about (and be aware of ALL the pros and cons) and just simply want to self-police and ensure that nothing gets posted without thinking - after all, it's too late once the post is there and will perhaps have been seen by a number of undesirables.

I know how important I am in this big picture, being an 'ex-pawn'!

[nutcracker43]

Threepointonefour

Thanks for that but you wouldn’t have a clue what I was versed in so your post is as irrelevant as the speculation on this thread thus far.

may well know what we're talking about (and be aware of ALL the pros and cons[/I]) and just simply want to self-police and ensure that nothing gets posted without thinking - after all, it's too late once the post is there and will perhaps have been seen by a number of undesirables.

Clearly, there is a need to ensure that vulnerability assessments are not made subject to disclosure that would enable this information to fall into the wrong hands but none of them have been, have they? Nor are they likely to be.

I appreciate the ‘need to know’ principle and the need for secrecy. I am certain that anybody in the know would not be speculating here, however, from your tone and others here who perhaps feel the same way I do detect a slight note of pomposity and self importance. Remarks such as yours will simply attract all the Watergate type wannabes and conspiracy theorists. I know from my background, training and discipline exactly where I stand on the informed citizen verses the need for secrecy totem pole.

Thanks once again,

NC43

[VH-GRUMPY]

I am quite happy for my thread to be closed down. The sooner the better.
It seems to be attracting a lot of garbage.
When the Australian Commonwealth Heads of Government Taskforce agreed with others that the Heads would be protected by military aircraft providing CAP over the venues we actually conducted a media conference at Maroochy airport conducted by the Chief of Air Staff and had two F/A18s conduct a fly past (the runways were too short for a landing) - fully armed: one slow and one fast. I was part of the media team and helped organise it.
The message to the community was clear - 'these are here to protect you so when you hear them at altitude over the next few days do not be worried. You can see them now - but you won't during the conference.'
None of this is secret - in fact the pictures of the flypast were available on the official website until it was archived by the Commonwealth Secretariat only a few months ago.

I thought I had raised a different issue from that being dbated here.

[The Rocket]

nutcracker43,

Please let me be the first to actually tell you to wind your neck in.

Myself, threepointonefour, frodomonkey et al are all actually in a position to comment with any kind of authority on this subject. We have not, and shockingly, we will not, and if you were actually anywhere near the "totem pole" you refer to, you would not either.

I really don't mean to be condescending here, but for god's sake have a little think about this, and walk a mile in our shoes.



If you've thought about it, and still don't agree, look on the bright side.........

You're a mile away.........

And you've got our shoes!!!!!

[The Rocket]

And VH-GRUMPY

I was actually taking the p1ss.

I didn't really ever think you had leaked secrets about SAM Hornets.

Blimey Charlie o' Bloody Riley:ugh:

[VH-GRUMPY]

No problems Rocket.

BTW - if you go to this site - which is the Department of Defence Image Library and type in CHOGM in the search engine, you will get a pic of an F/A18 Hornet being refuelled above Brisbane duirng Operation Guaradian - note it has air-to-air missiles on board.

Now off to have a bit of 'pi*s' myself.

[VH-GRUMPY]

http://www.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/

Maybe I will have a glass of champers now.

:{

[threepointonefour]

[B]Thanks once again, NC43

[B]Thank you


And we're accused of pomposity and self-importance? Who exactly are you thanking, and for what?

Enough of this anyway, I think we should all get back in our respective boxes and resist the temptation to stray to UKEO areas.

[SASless]

Nutcracker 43,

How dare you confuse this argument with facts....when those "in the know" and thus burdened with that knowledge plainly know best...after all what does a helicopter pilot know anyway as the man said.

The funny thing about this is the guy actually believes helicopter pilots....or those that wish to pass themselves off as helicopter pilots...know naught.

Now this ain't rocket science here....missile science maybe since the Crabs don't believe in guns anymore....much like the Americans did prior to the onset of aerial warfare in Vietnam...but then what do the Spams know either.

It comes as no surprise to the AQ gang that western powers will now consider shooting down hijacked airliners. Probably what amazes them is how unprepared we were back in 2001.

No matter what is put forth on this thread....is not binding or enlightening to anyone. When the decision has to be made....it will be made and carried out. Gruesome and horrible as it is, sometimes the greater good requires tough decisions.

911 has changed all of the rules. I doubt we will see a hijacking of the sort we did then now that there are armed pilots, armored doors, and passengers with the fore knowledge they will probably die in a suicide attack by the terrorists and thus have nothing to lose in fighting back.

I have no problem with a fighter jock standing up and saying hell yes...I will pull the trigger if needed. You guys setting up front in these Bow Wings and Hair Brushes, kindly keep an eye out for that FJ waving his upraised center digit at you and such. No sense having an own side goal.

[jack-oh]

In my experiance as an Air trafficer, it is usually F3s who ignore all instructions and head off in totally unexpected directions.

[The Rocket]

Well thank you for sharing the benefits of your 'experience' jack-oh.:mad:

Now go and crawl back under your rock:rolleyes:

[threepointonefour]

In my experiance as an Air trafficer, it is usually F3s who ignore all instructions and head off in totally unexpected directions.

... undoubtedly because they know better. ;)

Or don't trust you. ;)

Or both. :ouch:


(and for my next trick, I become a PPRuNe centurian)

[nutcracker43]

Threpointfour.

My mother always taught me to say thank you, especially to the pompous, and to idiots and slow children...

Thank you,

NC43

[Gary Lager]

Ooh! So close...

[The Rocket]

I'm sure threpointfour would "than" you too nutcracker:p

[threepointonefour]

nutcracker43,

Whatever.

Thank you.

__
3.14

[threepointonefour]

HELP !!!

I think I'm being censored!! My last post on this thread should have been my 100th ... my 'post counter' has just been reset to 2 !!

PPRuNe ... I'm not just a number ..!!

[Lima Juliet]

No you are a Pie-Man and I have just worked out who you are :ok:

LJ

[threepointonefour]

No you are a Pie-Man

"Pie" - I get it. Very funny.

You've got mail!

[teeteringhead]

My last post on this thread should have been my 100th ... my 'post counter' has just been reset to 2 !!
3.14 You failed to read the unwritten rule ......

You are not supposed to mention n*mb*rs of p*sts! (although as they are now displayed...:confused:)

..and I made 10 times the mistake you did!;)

....and see this JB thread.... (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=218829)

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Two Words

BEAD WINDOW

This information does not sit comfortably in the public domain, and is about as sensitive as it comes. I honestly believe that anyone who does have a role to play would not be making idle chit chat about it here which leads me to conclude that most here are just fishing/speculating/sensationalising* delete as appropriate.

Moderators, please get rid, ta

[boswell bear]

wind ya neck in

[Ivan Rogov]

Dirty S read the thread, if you honestly think anything here is giving useful info to potential enemies etc. then contact the moderators.
Surely the fact that some one has asked the question is not a reason to close down the thread, your will be telling us what to think next :bored:

[nutcracker43]

Care to elaborate boswell? maybe you are in the wrong forum old bean, looking at your profile, cant see what you have to do with "military aircrew", so suggest you poke off back from whence you came;)

Tells us as much as yours, old bean! IR does have a point, though.

NC43

[Selac66]

SASless,

Probably what amazes them is how unprepared we were back in 2001.

I can't let that go by. Perhaps not so amazing and unprepared when the evidence and continued denial of information is considered. I'm patient - not long to wait now.

http://www.911truth.org/

[VH-GRUMPY]

Thank you all for keeping my post alive.

Although I can't see the relevance of the last few posts.
Dirty Sanchez - I am not a military pilot and don't see the point in you asking people who are not to evacuate this post. I put this issue up here on the Military Aircrew thread because I thought that it would be an issue dear to the hearts of a lot of people including members of the military - not just the people who might have to do the government's bidding.

I am still hopeful that someone will be able to actually address the issue of what is served by having the government kill a lot of their own innocent civilians onboard an aircraft over a major city and possibly many on the ground just to deny the terrorists the pleasure of doing it first.

Its a conundrum.

BTW I see lots of military and airline pilots posting in GA threads and I have no problem because ultimately we are all pilots - just have access to different machinery and have different jobs.

Cheers

[VH-GRUMPY]

On reflection
I am quite angry about some (and I state quite deliberately some) military types on this thread suggesting that it is actually inappropriate in a democracy to question government decisions - particularly those of this profound nature.
It is not right that only the 'trained killers' can comment on such an issue.
No one has put any information on this thread which is classified, sensitive or not already available in the popular media.
Some of you guys (I assume that you are all male!) should get a life, get out more and stop reading comics.
OK - thats the first and last time I will get angry.
Cheers

[Widger]

VH-GRUMPY, no-one is trying to take away your right to ask questions although the present incumbents at No10 would probably like to but, what is inappropriate is for people in government service to answer them, when they are not authorised...It is called the Official Secrets Act....That is the point. Speculate all you like, ask whatever you like, but do not criticise me for trying to gag those who should know better!IVAN ROGOV.....Look into my eyes, not around my eyes, but into my eyes...

[Load Toad]

I agree with that - in this case it is very important that the possibility - however rempote of shooting innocent people and killing them in some attempt to save other innocent people or - save some 'important place' or 'important people' is debated.
I do not understand and I can not understand and have read no argument yet that in any way jusatifies shooting down civilian airliners. Either from an ethical or practical point of view.
Once a government decides it can kill innocent people - we are in a very big hole people.

[VH-GRUMPY]

WIDGER - thanks for responding.

I AM a Commonwealth Public Servant - based in Canberra - I have signed the Official Secrets Act (more than once) - I am been around in these areas for a long time and fully understand the responsibilities. In fact how about 44 years.

It doesn't mean that you pick up your brain and put it in a waste paper basket - I do have the right to ask and express views and all of my government employers have always recognised this. The discussions we have is robust and very enjoyable. I understand why in a frontline operational unit you can't have clowns like me questioning commanding officers' decisions. BTW I come from a military family - my father was RN 1936 - 1950 and RAN 1950 - 1962.

I worked in the (Australian) Prime Minister's Department during the Vietnam war - no one stopped me feeling bad about our involvment or stopped me expressing firm views about the legality or morality of our involvment or attending demonstrations. I am sure that my security file has the appropriate entries though.

I am really concerned that some types involved on thisn website actually think that thinking for oneself is bad for the security or for democracy. Isn't this what we are fighting for?

But then when I worked in the Australian Civilian Aviation Authority (and its earlier manifestations) I worked with a lot of ex-military pilots who didn't quite get IT. But they were always good company and I learned a great deal about piloting from them - I just didn't like their drinking games!

[Postman Plod]

I dont think anyone is disputing everyones individual right to think for themselves - I'm sure everyone has an opinion on this whether it agrees with yours or not. They just dont want to voice their thoughts on this subject in the public domain. Crewrooms, pubs, etc with people they know and trust then I'm sure they'd be more than happy to. If you look around the site, people are more than happy to use their rights of freedom of speech on such subjects as the Gulf, Nuclear Weapons, Afganistan, etc.

However how about their individual right not to feel like discussing such things in a public forum? They have used their free thought to decide that they are uncomfortable with your tone and continued questioning, especially where its probably something that no serving military person would be comfortable discussing! They have decided for themselves that they dont need to answer your questions if they dont want to.... The power of democracy....

Thats even discounting the security aspect of having professional military personnel discussing sensitive government decisions that would be taken under extreme circumstances, would be outside their influence or control, which they may or may not have to execute, and are purely speculative anyway.

[rugmuncher]

Shooting down a non-responsive/hi-jacked airliner, surely the rules haven't changed since 9/11, there were already adequate policies in place prior to that fatefull event?

Ooops,,, sorry, forgot,,, NO airliners were shot down that day either! Although there was supposedly a policy to do so, or not to on that day!

So what is the policy?,,, do we or don't we shoot down hi-jacked aircraft?
And if the policy IS to do so,,, why did this NOT happen on 9/11?

[Postman Plod]

Rugmuncher, Why would it, or why would there be?

Had there ever been a need to shoot down 1 hijacked civilian aircraft over Western soil before 9/11, let alone 4? Was there sufficient time to scramble armed aircraft from notification of hijack to impact? Was there time, even assuming the armed aircraft were in the air, had the aircraft visually identified, and had positive confirmation of hijack, to have such an executive decision made? Was there in fact a policy to shoot down hijacked aircraft? I'm sure the information is in the public domain somewhere....

[PPRuNeUser0172]

VH Grumpy, I dont really understand where you are coming from, forgive if I am being stupid but I dont see what you are trying to gleen by asking the questions you are. You are an Aussie civil servant, with all due respect, that doesnt give you the right to get info on highly sensitive policies regarding the security of UK airspace. Like you have claimed there is a plethora of info in the popular media, which I guess this website is, but you cant expect anyone on an anonymous forum to be discussing whether we will/wont "shoot down an airliner". Lots of people have signed the Official Secrets Act with varying degrees of access to sensitive info, doesnt mean to say that they can have access to anything which is "secret"

As has been said it is need to know, and those that need to, do. It is bound to be an emotive subject, and no one is denying your right to ask the question but you wont/shouldnt find any serious answers in this forum. Whenever this topic is raised it descends into a fairly heated argument which never achieves anything other than distort the reality that there is a serious job to be done with incorrect facts.

[nutcracker43]

Dirty Sanchez.

With the greatest respect, have you totally lost the plot? Anybody has the absolute right to legally try and get any info they like. Grumpy simply asked a few questions...nearly all of which are in magazines, google, or whatever. That people in the know will not pass any sensitive info is also a given and those 'in the know' simply will not pass it on. You state: ''Whenever this topic is raised it descends into a fairly heated argument which never achieves anything other than distort the reality that there is a serious job to be done with incorrect facts''. So what is your solution? Close the thread! Don't discuss it...please do get over yourself...As I see it Grumpy is simply wondering aloud what many reasonable people are thinking. I have signed the Official Secret Act and I certainly did not expect access to anything which was "secret" and which I did not need to know The subject is need to know, and so it should be...and you who have ‘’the need to know’’ have a duty not to discuss it. Ignore it if you must but do you not think you are drawing more attention to yourselves by requesting that the thread be shut down. Grumpy and all thinking people do have the right to ask the question, as you suggest in your last paragraph, even though there is an apparent contradiction when you suggest that it ‘’doesnt give you the right to get info on highly sensitive policies regarding the security of UK airspace’’ .

You have duty not to discuss and the right to ignore, that is all you have.

NC43

[Widger]

Nutcracker,If this thread were about how to make bombs or poison people (info which is also in the public domain) would you be so liberal in your attitude, would you also expect an professional expert in explosives or chemistry to give his opinion on whether the "mix" would work or not? If he were to start giving his opinion, he could equally expect other explosives or chemical experts to tell him to shut up!get my drift???

[nutcracker43]

Widger,

Thanks for that! Grumpy simply wondered aloud what would happen if a CAP aircraft hit the button...I wonder too what would happen...so the comparison you make is not in the slightest bit similar...is it??? If someone asked on this thread how to make bombs or poison people I would not expect any professional to give his opinion as to whether the mixture would work, or not, and if he/she ventured to give their considered opinion then I would expect the appropriate organs of state to leap into action and investigate the 'specialist'...just as I do not expect any professional who is in the 'need to know' loop to pass on that info...I have said it a few times, in fact. So, no, I do not get your drift..it is at best a flabby comparison and unsound thinking.

Thank you,

NC43

[rugmuncher]

Nutcracker,If this thread were about how to make bombs or poison people (info which is also in the public domain) would you be so liberal in your attitude, would you also expect an professional expert in explosives or chemistry to give his opinion on whether the "mix" would work or not? If he were to start giving his opinion, he could equally expect other explosives or chemical experts to tell him to shut up!get my drift???
What a complete and utter load of bollocks,, the official secrets act is designed to prevent people GIVING OUT information NOT merely ASKING/DISCUSSING it !!
http://www.eff.org/br/br.gif

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Ballbreaker43

You really have got a bee in your bonnet, I would love to highlight all my points in bold but I really cant be @rsed. I dont feel I need to get over myself, rather i will join the ranks of 3.14, The Rocket et al, and kindly ask you to do one and stick to model making or whatever else it is you enjoy, apart from being a gimp.

You also have the right to ignore, now there's a thought................:E

THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH

DS

[nutcracker43]

DS

Thanks for that.

Ahh, so you have read my profile...no bees in my bonnet old lad...personal insults would suggest a lost argument at best...we will simply have to agree to disagree...

Thank you and good day.

NC43

[tablet_eraser]

There is a valid debate to be had here, and some excellent arguments have been proposed. There is also the potential for a lot of nonsense and ill-informed speculation, and I fear that is the way we are heading at the moment.

I don't think anyone sees a problem in genuine, intelligent debate. Just don't expect any of the F3 mates, ATCers or FCs on here to discuss information we consider to be sensitive. That's our call, not yours. If you're so keen to push the case that this information should be made available, why not make a Freedom of Information Act request to MoD?

For the record, I sincerely hope that the Government never finds itself in a position where anyone would even consider such action.

[threepointonefour]

one must ask and what happens after you hit the button?
Just wondering.
:confused:

Mr GRUMPY,

You're right. One (all of us) must ask;

1. Is it morally right?
2. Is it legal?
3. What is the fallout of doing it?
4. What may the consequences be of 'not doing it'?
5. Where does the responsibility lie?

... and I could go on and on with these questions.

The truth is, is that you shouldn't need to ask these questions as a little thought will produce the answers. Asking such questions on a military forum is tantamount to goading someone into spilling more beans than they're allowed. If you want to know, then write to the PM's office for the official line. Or the MOD.


I do not expect any professional who is in the 'need to know' loop to pass on that info

... so why ask the question on a military forum? Unless you're, what do they say, phishing? :eek:
If you don't 'expect' a coherent answer, then any replies you do get are meaningless ... Am I missing something here?


Two Words

BEAD WINDOW



(Just to lighten the mood a little) ... I may be mistaken, but I was always under the impression that BEADWINDOW was one word?

... whoops?! Perhaps it's a beadwindow talking about the beadwindow? :ooh:

[nutcracker43]

Tablet eraser.

Not sure that anyone is pushing the case for information at all...that seems to be something someone has drummed up and I agree with you that I do not expect any of the ''F3 mates, ATCers or FCs'' on here to discuss information you consider to be sensitive so I am not sure who you are adressing yourself to. To correct you, it is not your call at all to divulge or discuss sensitive information at all...the Official Secret Act 1989 covers that quite clearly. To say however that one may not wonder about a hypothetical situation that you consider sensitive is an entirely different matter. ''If you're so keen to push the case that this information should be made available, why not make a Freedom of Information Act request to MoD?'' Has anybody done that (pushed the case for the information to be made available or even suggested it)? Far from sounding like a forum for sensible discussion it is beginning to sound like the mad hatter at the tea party.

Threepointonefour. Could you show me where I have asked for any information...I should be most interested.

Thank you.

NC43

[civobs]

'You're right. One (all of us) must ask;

1. Is it morally right?
2. Is it legal?
3. What is the fallout of doing it?
4. What may the consequences be of 'not doing it'?
5. Where does the responsibility lie?

... and I could go on and on with these questions.'

only one of these questions matters, all others follow...

[threepointonefour]

only one of these questions matters, all others follow...

I agree. That's why it's no.1.

Threepointonefour. Could you show me where I have asked for any information...I should be most interested.

You're twisting my meaning - I was merely quoting you, as well you know.

At no point in my post did I suggest you had asked for information - I used your phrase to illustrate the point - "Why did VH-GRUMPY ask the question, if he only expected answers from those 'not-in-the-know' and/or conspiracy theorists?"

[civobs]

lol! what's morality, a culturally mediated luxury, got to do with it?

btw i think you may have misquoted me:ok:

[tablet_eraser]

NC43,

If you want to find an argument in even the most conciliatory of messages, I see no point in anyone offering any feedback to this thread.

This thread is all about people wanting to find out about the shooting-down of civlian airliners in the event of a hijack. That sort of information, and anything pertaining to it, cannot be divulged through unofficial sources, which is why I suggested a FOI request if someone's concerned or interested. There is a case for debate in a democratic society, and it's entirely right that people consider the different possibilities. There is no case for anyone to expect political information about anything this sensitive in this sort of forum.

I would suggest that the mad hatter at the tea party is the one who remains blind to all arguments contrary to his own position.

That is my last contribution to this thread.

(Edited to acknowledge NC's PMs - no offence intended or taken by either side!)

[PhoenixDaCat]

Having re-read GRUMPYs opening post in this thread, nowhere can I see him asking for details of the policy around the shooting down of civilian aircraft. The only question asked was "what happens after you hit the button?"

I can only guess that he was wondering what the political fallout would be in the light of any public outcry.

Most of the responses in this thread seem to have been answering the unasked question "what happens leading up to you hitting the button?"

Maybe my understanding of simple English is flawed, due to the fact that I was born in Stoke?

[VH-GRUMPY]

Phoenix da cat
You are right on the button.
I was more interested under what laws government's are permitted to make a conscious decisons to kill say 350 innocent men women and children in the air and then maybe further significant numbers on the ground in trying to stop some mis-guide idiot from killing say some politicians (i.e. the Whitehouse; Westminster Palace or our Oz Parliament House).
Would the ensuing Royal Commission (because there would have to be one) support the government's legal right to order the decision - would they be immune from prosecution.
I also queried the logic of this type of defence/offence. It is less likely now of course with sky marshalls more prevalent, increased airpor security and reinforced cockpit doors - but no one on this thread pointed this out to me.
But despite it being less likely, we had the F/A 18s up over Melbourne during the Commonwealth Games.
Cheers

[Load Toad]

I can't understand how showing terrorists that we are happy to shoot them down & kill them when they are quite happy to die for their cause anyway is going to stop them trying to committ these atrocious acts.
And - once we've actually been able to intercept a hijacked airliner and we were to shoot it down killing the innocent people and the terrorists instead of it maybe managing to hit a very important place or people do we turn around and shout 'Ha - your plot failed terrorist scum; we killed the innocent people not you!'?
Now quite why if a plane had been hijacked and it was clearly on its way to kill an important person or place - or even more innocent people we have time to scramble an aircraft(s) get into a position to launch missiles and down the airliner without (or with) it falling onto more innocent people - but we don't have time to try to evacuate the very important people etc from the 'target' - c'mon it's just the realm of utter and complete nonesense.
The Germans in this case are the first and so far only nation to have come to the correct conclusion. A conclusion that does actually prove to terrorists that they will not make us give up our values and our way of life.

[threepointonefour]

I think some of the points raised in the last 2 posts are very valid.

VH-GRUMPY, you said;

But despite it being less likely, we had the F/A 18s up over Melbourne during the Commonwealth Games.


Now you should ask yourself, "Why did our government do this?"

[PhoenixDaCat]

Maybe it comes down to the fact that if the Govt of the day lets the terrorists crash an aircraft into an event such as the Commonwealth Games, there would be a public outcry. Of course, if the aircraft is shot down, there would be a public outcry, but maybe it would be lesser, as they could argue that they did try to do something.

The simple fact is that if a terrorist group manages to take over an aircraft, there is likely going to be major loss of life. Personally I think it best to leave it to head for it's target, in the hope that the passengers manage to regain control.

But the govt has to be seen to have tried to do something, no matter that logic says that they will have killed the innocent before the terrorists had the chance to.