PDA

View Full Version : FAA and Homeland Security 'at loggerheads' over stolen Cessna-172


airship
7th Apr 2009, 15:17
US military jets forced an allegedly-stolen Canadian-based Cessna-172 to land on a US highway (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7987156.stm): A spokeswoman from the US Federal Aviation Administration said the Cessna 172 came from a flight school at Thunder Bay Airport, Ontario, from where it was reported stolen...
The head of the school said: "Apparently somebody jumped over the fence and just jumped into an aircraft. It was sitting as usual parked on the ramp. The keys are in all the aircraft because students are using them." Homeland Security however remained adamant that a major threat to national security had been adverted and/or neutralised.

Meanwhile, an unofficial observer (yours truly), observed that the pilot actually successfully landed the aircraft. Something no Florida flight-school ex. Al Qaeda student-pilot has yet been able to manage.

Do B-52s (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7053898.stm) (whether or not carrying nuclear-armed missiles) also have 'the keys' left in them regularly...?! And how come they allowed the miscreant to fly for 6 hours...without blowing 'im away in the best 'Wild West' tradition...?! :confused:

Matari
7th Apr 2009, 15:54
Airship:


And how come they allowed the miscreant to fly for 6 hours...without blowing 'im away in the best 'Wild West' tradition

Are you serious?

1. What does a private aircraft parked in Canada have to do with USAF B-52's?
2. This flight was tracked by Norad, fighters were scrambled, towns along the way notified, precautions taken.
3. Plane landed safely, no injuries/deaths. Miscreant in custody.
4. So what on earth are you actually moaning about? Isn't it time to feed cats or something?

airfoilmod
7th Apr 2009, 15:58
And some hot cake, Sears Tower? Dirty Bomb?

Blue Haired old ladies must disrobe at ORD, but a 172 can fly for 6-8 hours in radio silence with absolute impunity? Who TF is in charge? F-16's with gear down and bristling with sharpies on the wings can't dissuade this scoundrel from continuing toward the "HOMELAND"??? Sack the Lot of these posers. (Not the Falcon gents, obviously).

Obama, get a grip. Was He even told? Not that he wouldn't first try ummmm...........DIPLOMACY.

Matari, Sir, I see you, and raise a THUNDERBALL. The World IS that crazy.
If you think a snake is overkill, the -16 has a gun.

AF

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 16:00
FAA and Homeland security at Loggerheads?
That's a nice little bar in Coconut Grove near Miami.
How did he get that far?

AcroChik
7th Apr 2009, 16:02
This incident provided some of the most hilariously inaccurate-and-frantic-while-being-dead-certain aviation reportage by fluffy-brained television entertainers that I've ever seen:

"We've received information that the jet is due to pass over and that we ought to take cover."

Not since CNN's boys donned flak jackets and helmets to seem studly in Baghdad have so few brain cells provoked such derisive pleasure.

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 16:04
I'd want a flak jacket and helmet for everyday wear over there!

Miami, not Baghdad.

skiingman
7th Apr 2009, 16:05
You want them to blow The World's Most Generic and Boring aircraft out of the sky?

Or you want them to attempt to try and intimidate someone who has already made a bizarre and desperate choice in the hope that the next choice will be to land safely at the nearest airport?

I don't think you've thought this through. I feel a bit bad for the people involved....can't imagine anything more boring than chasing a 172. They could have foregone the fighters and grabbed a helo. Or a fast balloon.

FlightTester
7th Apr 2009, 17:26
This takes me back to when I first started living with Americans (I like to phrase it like that, makes me feel like Jane Goodall).
My day job as a Flight Test Engineer has me flying as part of the three person crew of a large twenty ton aircraft, were the Department of Homeland Security bothered that an "alien" was capable of taking over the controls of that aircraft and flying into the nearest large building of choice - Nope not a bit.
However, when I wanted to get my FAA licence, well that required going to flight school (just like those naughty Johnny Arabs that flew into the Trade Centers did). So I had to register for the Alien Flight Student Scheme, lots of paperwork, fingerprints (so that the FBI could check them - despite the fact that they'd already checked them when my visa was approved) etc. All of the above so that I could rent a C-172 on the weekends for a $100 burger.

So it does not surprise me one bit that little old ladies have to remove their shoes at ORD etc, that a 172 can meander aimlessly for six hours and a whole lot more. The DHS and TSA was the biggest job creation scheme since the New Deal, but at least the New Deal provided some tangible benefits in the long term.:ugh:Rant over.

birrddog
7th Apr 2009, 17:57
....can't imagine anything more boring than chasing a 172. They could have foregone the fighters and grabbed a helo. Or a fast balloon.

What's the stall speed on the F16? Probably more than VNE in the 172.

Lots of S-turns no doubt.

No wonder they were annoyed :p

BombayDuck
7th Apr 2009, 18:03
Should've sent a coupla A-10s. Lower stall speed for one, and the sight of an Avenger on either side of your aircraft poking its nose out of those shark teeth would put the fear of the Lord into the pilot :p

RatherBeFlying
7th Apr 2009, 18:42
It was too slow for easy gunnery and the missiles likely cost at least twice as much as the C-172:p

As for the Warthog, I believe it's finally been retired. USAF never really wanted it.

Captain Stable
7th Apr 2009, 19:08
A close fly-by would probably down it.

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 19:55
Think the USAF would give me a spare Warthog or two?

con-pilot
7th Apr 2009, 19:55
Latest is that the guy who stole the 172 was a student at the school. The F-16s picked him up at the border and covered him for the entire flight. F-16s were rotated in and out during the six hour flight.

There was a discussion about shooting the aircraft down at NORAD. A spokesman from NORAD said that a decision was made that unless the aircraft appeared to pose a direct and imminent threat to viable ground target that it would not be shot down.

It now appears that the suspect (I love that) had the intentions of carrying out the old 'suicide by cop' ploy to never before attained levels.

Suicide by F-16.

He wanted to be shot down. When he was not and ran out of fuel he landed on a highway and surrendered to a Highway Patrol Officer.

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 19:58
Made a totally bollocksed job of that little scheme then?

con-pilot
7th Apr 2009, 20:05
Made a totally bollocksed job of that little scheme then?

Pretty much, but look at the bright side, he got six more hours to put in his logbook. :p

V2-OMG!
7th Apr 2009, 20:06
A spokeswoman from the US Federal Aviation Administration said the Cessna 172 came from a flight school at Thunder Bay Airport, Ontario, from where it was reported stolen...

Where exactly are the headquarters for proone......and have any Canadians been banned lately? :}

birrddog
7th Apr 2009, 20:09
F-16s were rotated in and out during the six hour flight.
I wonder if they considered rotating out the F16's with something a little more practical?


There was a discussion about shooting the aircraft down at NORAD. A spokesman from NORAD said that a decision was made that unless the aircraft appeared to pose a direct and imminent threat to viable ground target that it would not be shot down.
For a second I read that as "posed an imminent threat to the F16's" and was going to ask how a 172 can pose an imminent threat to an F16 other than threatening to cause FOD in the air-intake.

Edit: At the risk of an aviation question in JetBlast are F16 air filters 172 proof? :}

Storminnorm
7th Apr 2009, 20:10
Could prove the MOST expensive 6 hrs ever con-pilot.

Don't they fit metal grills over the intakes when out
hunting 172's ?

con-pilot
7th Apr 2009, 20:17
I wonder if they considered rotating out the F16's with something a little more practical?


I don't know really. Would a Blackhawk helicopter keep up with a 172? That would make more sense, but then would a Blackhawk have the armament to shoot down a 172?

Plus we have F-16s stationed all over the country with Air National Guard units, so they would be the most convenient to be used.

er340790
7th Apr 2009, 20:21
Certainly livened things up here in my neck of the woods.

To put things in perspective, aircraft cross the Moose-Yank border from small airstrips and esp. lakes around here every few minutes. Notification should be given 1 hr ahead, but the requirement often is ignored by fly-in fishing parties etc.

The alarm was only raised as he chose to start his escapade from CYQT, the only airport for about 600+kms with ATC.

Note to suicide / terrorist wannabes: Step #1 select an uncontrolled airfield :ugh:

B Sousa
7th Apr 2009, 20:26
Would a Blackhawk helicopter keep up with a 172? That would make more sense, but then would a Blackhawk have the armament to shoot down a 172?


Most Certainly it would keep up for a couple hours and most certainly those guys would love to paint a 172 on the side of the Blackhawk. M134 is quite capable at destroying things.

This Turkey from Turkey was only a threat to himself. If the bad guys were out to destroy something all the Kings Horses and all the Kings Men are so rapped up in the Security Empire they would probably only know about it after it happened.

Homeyland Security...... Are you sh1tt1n me? They cant even protect our borders.

11Fan
7th Apr 2009, 20:29
If he'da made it a couple hundred more miles, you coulda taken him down with a deer rifle from your front porch.






when da hell did'a start talkin like this?

con-pilot
7th Apr 2009, 20:32
If he'da made it a couple hundred more miles, you coulda taken him down with a deer rifle from your front porch.


Yup, if I had a deer rifle. All I have is a .22 rifle made in 1899, don't think that would work. :\

11Fan
7th Apr 2009, 20:34
Unless you pulled up alongside of him riding shotgun in a Blackhawk.

Now that would be a story to tell.

RatherBeFlying
7th Apr 2009, 22:32
While the pilot may have been aware that the FAA and TC will be on his tail for busting a few regs, US Customs will be asking him for a very fat cheque for a considerable number of expensive civil penalties:uhoh:

Lets guess how much -- I open the bidding at $35,000 US:}

Lon More
7th Apr 2009, 22:42
Didn't the Irish Air Force consider fitting rocket pods on C172s for fishery patrols at one time?

brickhistory
7th Apr 2009, 22:47
Rather be flying:

As for the Warthog, I believe it's finally been retired. USAF never really wanted it.

Thankfully, it's still alive and well and earning its spurs in hot, dusty places. For all the Allies.

True enough about not wanting it initially, but after Desert Storm, USAF likes it heaps and has made numerous upgrades to it.

hellsbrink
7th Apr 2009, 22:58
Yup, Brick, a great design that seems to have been "right" when they first designed it. Not often that happens, is it.

Oh, is it true the air force wanted the A-10 pilots to be classed as "Army" because they flew so low?

AcroChik
7th Apr 2009, 23:02
"Hey Con ~
If he'da made it a couple hundred more miles, you coulda taken him down with a deer rifle from your front porch."

If the guy'd had more hours in a 172 he might have known that if you thin the mixture out and trim it right you can keep it up for eight hours. He might have reached you!

But, even if he had, it turns out you're not a real American; you don't own any big guns :p

Flash2001
7th Apr 2009, 23:03
Just a quick question. Is the regular USAF actually involved in the air defence of the United States? This intercept, like those attempted on 9/11, seems to have been performed by various ANG units. I understand that these are reserves on active duty.

After an excellent landing etc...

brickhistory
7th Apr 2009, 23:33
Flash,

It depends. Specifics aren't for a public forum, but yes, AD (active duty) fighter units can be tasked with air defense now.

Pre-9/11, it was 100% an ANG (Air National Guard) show as no one really thought it a serious mission anymore requiring large numbers of alert fighters. The odd Cuban MiG etc, but no mass Soviet bomber raids and the like.

Now it depends on many variables as to who is flying/on alert, etc. The ANG guys are very good.

AcroChik
7th Apr 2009, 23:40
Brick ~

Would I be correct in adding that under then-current (pre-9/11) interpretations of the Constitution, active deployment of the military inside national borders was a no-no, outside periods of declared war?

Such deployment had been seriously considered under Reagan in anti-drug campaigns and discarded due to potential constitutional challenge.

National Guard units posed no constitutional issue, as they act under the (sometimes thin) authority of state governors, and thus do not challenge states rights provisions.

9/11 essentially settled this debate (rightly or wrongly), and thus opened a constitutional gate for deployment of active duty armed forces inside American borders.

Thus far, deployments have been very discrete and limited.

Dushan
8th Apr 2009, 00:25
"[B][I]... and trim it right you can keep it up for eight hours.

Yes, but you are supposed to call your doctor after 4 hours...

CityofFlight
8th Apr 2009, 00:45
Dushan... damn good thread drift, if ever there was one!! :D

brickhistory
8th Apr 2009, 00:52
AC,

I don't think that is the case as air defense was performed for decades by an entity called Air Defense Command, an active duty headquarters with both active and Guard units assigned. With the lessening of the Soviet air threat, the mission was passed entirely to the Guard as a cost-saving measure sometime in the late 1980s-ish.

The mission from the time of the 1950s until 9/11 was to defend from threats originating outward. Hence the really good radar coverage of the airspace outside the US and a relative lack of it within the US.

The latter issue has now been resolved.

So, to answer your question, I don't believe the posse comitatus (sp?) act applies to this federal mission. The threat is still considered an act of war type of thing and not law enforcement.

As an aside, when the Air Guard guys are working air defense missions, they do so as part of the USAF (federalized) and not as a member of their state militia (although they do have the right to keep and bear Brussel Sprouts...).

con-pilot
8th Apr 2009, 01:25
(although they do have the right to keep and bear Brussel Sprouts...).

Where there any Brussels sprouts in that 172? I think we should be told. :suspect:

Peter Fanelli
8th Apr 2009, 01:43
I'd like to know why they charged him with illegally entering the United States while we turn a blind eye to the twelve million or so bloody mexicans here illegally! :mad:

AcroChik
8th Apr 2009, 01:55
Interesting, Brick, thank you.

wish2bflying
8th Apr 2009, 02:02
Lets guess how much -- I open the bidding at $35,000 US

Let's see here -- 6 hours, 2 x F-16's at about $30,000 per hour, assume about ? 2 hours ? base-to-base, 30 minute overlap on flying time per sortie, therefore about (2 a/c x 2 hrs x ~4 sorties x $30,000) = I see your $35,000 and raise you to $480,000, give or take a few thousand.

And that's not including the time involved in all the heavily striped shoulders shouting into telephones.

Dushan
8th Apr 2009, 02:08
Isn't it time to merge this thread with US Politics - Hamsterwheel? After all the guy is Turkish, Obama(PBUH) is in Turkey, who is a NATO member, which has its HQ in Brussels, where the sprouts grow.

pigboat
8th Apr 2009, 02:28
Didn't the Irish Air Force consider fitting rocket pods on C172s for fishery patrols at one time?

Going after flying fish were they?

Two's in
8th Apr 2009, 03:38
If you remember, a couple of months after 9/11 a disaffected 15-year old stole a Cessna and drove into the Bank of America building in Tampa. Other than killing himself, he broke a glass paperweight and knocked a trash can over, not exactly a weapon of mass destruction...

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/06/photos/tb-plane.jpg

BombayDuck
8th Apr 2009, 05:13
Here I am, thinking... hmm, a 172 is a prop aircraft, so we can't really send a jet after it. So why not something with a prop... but, nothing ornery, how about with a few guns?

Ah. Got it!

Meet Spooky, the AC-130U (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AC-130_firing_night.gif).

A 105 mm Howitzer staring at you might just have the desired effect, non?

Krystal n chips
8th Apr 2009, 06:14
I. erm, liked the bit about a "discussion taking place at NORAD" etc and the "no imminent threat" etc......thus setting a precedent I assume as discussion and objective rational thinking are not concepts one usually associates with the US Mil.......;):E

However, compared to your man below, clearly a mere beginner in the Great Nutters of Aviation league.

Mathias Rust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust)

airship
8th Apr 2009, 15:16
He wanted to be shot down. When he was not and ran out of fuel he landed on a highway and surrendered to a Highway Patrol Officer. "...ran out of fuel he landed on a highway and surrendered to a Highway Patrol Officer."

Sheriff J.W. Pepper here: "that doggone pi-lot picked the WRONG parish to try and haul ass through BOY! NOBODY cuts and runs on Sheriff JW PEPPER! And it's him who's speakin' by the by."

Perhaps, (if only) this rogue Cessna-172 pilot had been given a fair chance in life to become a commercial airline pilot?! We'd all be asking just how far away was the River Hudson? Instead of J.W. Pepper being allowed to express his ve-he-mence he-re...?! ;)

Evening Star
8th Apr 2009, 23:03
Mathias Rust

A most useful member of 'Great Nutters of Aviation History' as well by allowing Comrade Mikhail to get rid of a few 'off message' generals in the aftermath.:E