Learjet forced to land by military interceptors

[Phil Kemp]

I woke up yesterday morning (Wednesday 12th) here in Bellingham Washington, to the sound of low flying aircraft over the house. Looking out I saw an F-18 heading North at low level. Throughout the morning, I heard stories, that a Lear had been forced to land, by military aircraft.

I was up at the airport during the day and saw the machine parked there. This story was published in the news today.

Plane With Donated Heart Grounded

SEATTLE (AP) - A chartered airplane carrying a donor heart was intercepted because of the nation's commercial flight ban, but a helicopter flew the organ to Seattle just in time for surgery.

The Federal Aviation Administration had approved Wednesday's flight despite the flight ban following Tuesday's terrorism, but the military was uninformed due to "miscommunication,'' said Jill Steinhaus, a spokeswoman for LifeCenter Northwest, the organ-procurement agency that chartered the plane.

The chartered plane was flying the heart from a crash victim in Anchorage, Alaska. FBI Special Agent Jim Powers said the flight was escorted through Canadian air space by Royal Canadian Air Force fighters, then "handed off'' to two Navy F/A-18 fighters.

It was forced to land in Bellingham, about 80 miles short of its destination. The organ was transferred to a helicopter to finish its journey.

A heart can last about eight hours outside the body, and six hours had elapsed when the donor organ reached the operating room at the University of Washington Medical Center. The surgery was performed in 56 minutes.

"We had an excellent heart to transplant. The surgery went very, very well,'' said Dr. Gabriel Aldea, the hospital's chief of adult cardiac surgery.

Last year, doctors had refused to put patient Brian Cortez, 21, on a transplant waiting list. Cortez, who is deaf, developmentally disabled and mildly schizophrenic, had been frightened, communicated poorly and sometimes fought with nurses.

His former teacher, Ted Karanson, and his mother, Gabriele Cortez, threatened to sue the university. Doctors relented in June after Karanson took over as Cortez's caretaker because his disabled mother could not care for him.

[GotTheTshirt]

FAA - Military = "miscommunication" !!

Frightening

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: GotTheTshirt ]

[AAL_Silverbird]

A MESSAGE FROM AOPA PRESIDENT PHIL BOYER

ALL IFR AND VFR GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHTS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. Never did I think that I would see a notam like this. I had spoken Thursday morning with both the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA administrator. As the ultimate optimist, I could only continue to hope that their promise of reopening the national airspace system to full access by general aviation would be real.

Yes, we are in the early recovery phases of a major national crisis. But the communication failure within the FAA itself and other government agencies has produced an aviation crisis in its own right. Throughout Thursday morning, the news media touted an FAA notam indicating that the airspace would be open to all aviation users at 1500Z. AOPA verified this, downloaded a copy from DUAT, and placed it on our Web site.

Within minutes, I received a call from a high-level FAA manager indicating that the subject of GA was still under review. Reluctantly, and with great disappointment, we changed our Web posting to warn pilots that they might not be able to fly at 1500Z. However, pilots who did obtain a legal briefing got that notam, filed flight plans, and in some cases even departed at what they thought was a legal hour. But in fact, they had unknowingly violated a new notam issued at 1457Z prohibiting all GA flights. The horror stories then began to unfold. Flight crews had told their corporate CEOs they could depart at 11 a.m. Eastern time (1500Z), taxied out, and then were turned around by the tower. Some flights did get into the air, but don't count them lucky. F-16s intercepted not only corporate aircraft, but also a Texas student and flight instructor. All were forced to return to home base and land.

When we first became aware of the possibility that this could happen, AOPA's senior vice president of government and technical affairs, Andy Cebula, called the head of FAA Flight Standards and obtained his pledge that no one caught in this mixed-up notam mess would be subject to an enforcement action. "Chaos" is the best way to describe the FAA environment that your association is working in. Flight service stations are offering conflicting information to pilots, sometimes contradicting information issued from FAA headquarters.

It appears that users are being allowed back into the airspace system segment by segment. Late Thursday afternoon, it was Part 135 flights, better known as charter flights to you and me. But that decision may be reversed. Later Thursday, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta and I spoke again. In a lengthy phone conversation, he told me about the continuing debate among the president’s national security team. The nation still faces serious security threats. The Capitol building was evacuated because of a suspicious package. Many airports have received bomb threats. And the three major New York airports were closed right after they reopened because federal authorities detained more suspects, including one reportedly carrying false pilot credentials.

Nevertheless, Mineta convinced a meeting of the president's National Security Council (which included Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller) to at least consider allowing IFR general aviation operations soon. "But Mr. Secretary, I'm most concerned about the return of basic VFR privileges," I said. "And this type of flying presents no security threat to the nation." Secretary Mineta agreed, and we spent 45 minutes on the phone discussing general aviation and the continued security threat. But he told me that the National Security Council perceives VFR flight as uncontrolled, and therefore a greater threat somehow. It became very obvious to me that the Secretary of Transportation tried his best to change that perception. He had the right arguments, he made the correct points, and he was much more eloquent than any one of us. In some cases, he even called on his primary flight training background to make points we wanted heard.

And then late Thursday evening, AOPA learned that, because of the continuing threats, the approval for Part 135 operations might be rescinded.

The bottom line is that decision-makers outside of the FAA and the Department of Transportation believe the nation still faces a heightened security risk, and that general aviation might be used to attack the nation. While we all know that is pretty farfetched, the mood at the moment is to not take any risks, no matter how unlikely they might be.

AOPA is continuing to push on all fronts to get general aviation back in the air. But let me manage your expectations. When the security threats lessen, first will come the approval for Part 91 IFR flying. Then, no sooner than 48 hours later should come the restoration of VFR privileges. We will continue to post updates on AOPA Online as quickly as information becomes available.

AVIATION TO RESUME IN ALASKA

Recognizing the vital role that general aviation plays in Alaska, the FAA approved Wednesday night the restart of flight operations in the state. The FAA told AOPA that it expected that aircraft would continue to be allowed to fly in Alaska regardless of what happens in the lower 48 states.

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: AAL_Silverbird ]

[Paterbrat]

With the greatest respect concerning the comment "While we know this is pretty far fetched..."
What happenened on the 11th was only held to be in the realms of fiction but happen it did.
I personaly would feel that all security moves in the wake of a disaster need the fullest support and co-operation from every segment of aviation given the method used to implement the foul act.

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: Paterbrat ]

[Jackonicko]

Sensible responses to the tragedy should be supported, obviously but stupid responses, and knee-jerk reactions intended only to make the President or the Administration 'look good' and look as if they're doing something should be pointed out as the nonsense they may be. Grounding private airplanes is a difficult one, admittedly, but allowing US airlines to operate in and out of the USA (the very carriers whose lax security made this tragedy possible) while banning more secure carriers like El Al and BA is a piece of nonsensical window dressing.

Let's keep thinking.

[scroggs]

It is inevitable that while the USA transitions to the overtly suspicious mindset that has been the norm in Europe and the MidEast for some time, some mistakes born of good intentions are made. You guys are learning how to do this very rapidly; we've been doing it for many years and yet still misunderstandings happen. Take them as a natural consequence of the quite proper intent to protect your people; accept that over-zealous officials combined with enthusiastic amateur (and professional) pilots will occasionally result in a difference of opinion. It happens. Be patient, don't get too wound up about freedoms, and give every assistance you can to those who have the very difficult job of carrying out the new security regulations.
This is your new reality, I'm afraid.

[StbdD]

Jackonico

Where to begin? In the interest of bandwidth I'll just take one of the points in your post.

Since BA is so much more a "secure carrier" than the incompetent United or AA would you care to discuss the violent cockpit instrusion which occured on a BA aircraft inflight over Africa in the recent past? Surely you recall it. It was well discussed on these pages as well as your tabloids.

Ah, you say, but that was successfully resolved. Indeed, that time. One crazed hijacker with no specific goal and without the foresight to pick up a knife and a flight attendant on the way to the cockpit was eventually overpowered.

The US crews had to deal with 4 to 5 well-trained and determined terrorists in a long planned and well-prepared operation with the specific intent to destroy the aircraft, kill the occupants, themselves and God knows how many innocents on the ground in the most costly terrorist incident of all time.

Think BA could have resolved that one in the skies over London? Manchester? Liverpool? How about over New York City on the morning of the 11th?

Consider the UK's actions grounding aircraft/restricting airspace was kneejerk as well?

Then you do your countrymen a diservice Sir.

If you think it couldn't have or can't happen in your home country, wake up. Feel EXTREMELY lucky that only the US was targeted this time. It could damned certainly just as easily have been you.

You might consider either leaving the US alone to deal with their horrendous situation or perhaps even offer some support if your beliefs allow you to do that.
But please, please, refrain from your small-minded anti-US shots. They've had quite enough of them lately.

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: StbdD ]

[Ignition Override]

StbdD (and other Ppruners): Jackonicko made some generalizations above. But some of the FAA's reactions or local airports' reactions don't really make sense. It seems ironic to me to prohibit foreign airlines here if local airlines were beginning some ferry or revenue flights.

Two nights ago, I took both my airline ID card and the parking lot ID card into the nearly empty airport terminal, in order to make slight changes to my computer bidding uploaded for the October flying month. The local airport security and ticket counter agents then required a special ground agent (she was a paramedic, now also on the "GO team")to escort me to the pilot lounge, some of which is not surprising. We will very soon have to all sit in on a one-hour class in order to get the third ID card, valid for all of the terminal ramp areas: this class has been offered already for at least two years, and was supposed to teach airline pilots just basic ground security as they were brand-new food/drink catering truck employees! This makes no sense at all if you think about it: and it is NOT a local FAA requirement. This implies that many of us have flown around the US without understanding ground security, despite our annual recurrent training. The class material was nothing new to pilots who have attended. Now, UNLESS there are several significant new procedures or changes, then some of this IS only a bureaucratic knee-jerk reaction. Try to convince me otherwise.

During Desert Storm, due to threats made, US airport security was tighter. Assuming that the looser security after that was adequate, then I would bet that the FAA or local Airport Authorities will initiate new procedures as mostly a knee-jerk reaction, because these help pacify the media and the public until some complacency takes place.


Pardon the callous comments here, but the overall FAA only reacts (at least for a while) to numerous dead bodies or very intense Congressional pressure, i.e. after the Valuejet tragedy, and historically has been totally unresponsive to many, many NTSB recommendations which were the results of many past accident investigations over the years-that is why it is known as the "Tombstone Agency". This was well-known even before Mary Schiavo's (the former DOT Inspector General) book.

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 15 September 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[StbdD]

Ignition Overide,

I suspect you know exactly what my point above was. I shall not repeat it.

As to current decisions designed to make the President and the Administration look good, that accusation is patently unfair. What exactly would YOU (retorical) have done? Air travel must be re-established and precautions must be taken. Are they the best precautions? I don't know but I bet they are the best that can be done on short notice in the current environment. Will more come? I'd bet my next paycheck.

I'll not defend the FAA's past, they've screwed me more than once. But to accuse them of anything short of the best intentions right now is BS. It is in fact, just a cheap and easy shot at an organization which is doing it's best in trying circumstances. Lest anyone be misled, the FAA's recent decisions were made in full consultation with the US Pilot and Flight Attendant unions along with management.

I find it interesting that some here on PPrune are lamenting that foreign carriers aren't being allowed into the US, or that access is being unfairly apportioned, while others (and sometimes the same) decry the suposedly foolish, ineffective, inept, politically motivated security decisions taken so far.

I'll say it again, lose thousands of your citizens in an unprecedented aviation-related terrorist act, come up with a perfect plan on no-notice, THEN come tell us how to do it.

[Jackonicko]

Security can never be 100% but:

1) Tell me that four Arab hijackers could have got on four simultaneous European flights, with weapons or without. Tell me you wouldn't search their hand baggage more thoroughly than that of the unfortunate headcase who caused the air-rage incident to which you referred.

2) Tell me that security on US domestic flights was generally anywhere near as good as it generally is 'over here'.

3) Reassure me that the different mindset between the US and Europe does not contribute to the problem. Over here security is regarded as a necessary irritant, and the need for it is not questioned. Over there, security precautions are seen as an assault on individual freedom. The following is a genuine, unedited quote from an American friend sent in the aftermath of the tragedy:

"What I don't want is any domestic security measure that isn't necessary. The metal detectors and guards at airports, installed circa. 1970, were supposed to be temporary. Whatever security measures are implemented now should be appropriate and temporary. I don't want us to give up who we are."

It would be cheap to point out that what you are is a 'soft target'.

Tell me that such views aren't representative of any Americans, or that they don't make any difference.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that it couldn't happen elsewhere, just that it was easier to target US domestic flights. And I believe that it probably still is. Tell me what security precautions have been instituted by US carriers that make them safer or more secure than BA are already. Bear in mind that US carriers are already a more tempting target, and should be more secure.

I don't care whether BA gets back into the US in the first tranche, I used them as an example. Find me an airline more security conscious than El Al, then!

In any case, the overall point wasn't to be anti-American but to urge a considered and sensible response, not a kneejerk one driven by PR considerations. And, believe it or not, that's meant as a supportive act.

And, if it makes you feel any better, I'll hereby condemn Tony Blair's nonsensical 'not over Central London ban' (hijackers will obey that one) and the termination of all private flying as being equally facile window dressing.

This is not intended as a nationalistic slanging match.

Random thoughts:
Suggestions as to how it might be done better are not meant as bitter insults or affronts to national pride.

The automatic assumption that American (or Brit, or European) is best may not help.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Some of us have been dealing with terrorism for decades.

If we didn't care, we wouldn't post.

Sincere condolences.

[sirwa69]

The Brits have lost thousands to terrorists, just not in one go, but over thirty odd years. Funiliy enough it was the Yanks that paid for most of the terrorists guns and bombs.
When we go into this new war against terrorism can we remember the Irish lads as well!!!

[sirwa69]

Oh, and I forgot, "The countries that give them support and protection"

btw Just because I have lost 2 relatives to terrorism don't think I am bitter about it, I just want it stopped!

[PAXboy]

When flights were restarted for US carriers only, I did not perceive this to be for security reasons but for financial ones.

[StbdD]

I take it you were bummed out about the internal US reveunue flights which are the only ones which have resumed since 1200 US Central time on the 14th right?

Especially since US carriers were only doing case-by-case international and domestic flights on the 13th.

[llamas]

I have to quibble with Jackonicko on several issues, viz:

"1) Tell me that four Arab hijackers could have got on four simultaneous European flights, with weapons or without. Tell me you wouldn't search their hand baggage more thoroughly than that of the unfortunate headcase who caused the air-rage incident to which you referred."

Well, pardon me, but how did they get the the US? Via Europe, it would seem from all we know to date. Now, you will say that they travelled separately, and they were not hijackers when they crossed the pond. Well, that's being wise after the event. But if proper screening of passengers - as you suggest works in Europe - were the simple answer to these kinds of problems, should it not have caught these clowns when they flew from Europe - even though they did not intend to hijack that flight, but the next one? Or does passenger screening only work for the flight that they are about to board?

"Over there, security precautions are seen as an assault on individual freedom. "

A sweeping generalization, which is at best sometimes partly true.

What irks Americans so often about security precuations is that a) they are sometimes so obviously ineffective, and that b) they are so often intrusive (or at the least, grossly insensitive) to personal freedoms and personal security while they are being so obviously ineffective.

Search my carry-ons all you like, I don't care - but don't lay out the contents of my briefcase in front of any passer-by. I'm not a hijacker, but he may well be a mugger. Do like they do in Europe, and search in private.

Teach the people who do this work to treat people as though the troublemaker is the exception and not the rule. I've been detained in Europe and searched to an extent that I would normally have expected the guy to buy me dinner first - but always with at-least-distant courtesy and professionalism. US airport security is often staffed by a collection of jumped-up jack-in-offices and doleful jobsworths (lovely expression, by the way) who seem to delight in tormenting and frustrating pax while being - as said - so obviously ineffective.

Americans will put up with a lot of things, but they are very demanding, and one of their demands is that what they are asked to put up with be effective, that it be seen to be so, and that their voluntary acceptance of it be seen in the proper proportion. Yes, they value their personal freedom highly - that's exactly why they want a damned good reason before they give any of it up, and airport security as presently practised in the US fails that test miserably.

Ask a US traveller who has flown on El Al - I'll wager you a pint at the Goose and Firkin that he/she will express nothing but admiration for the quality, depth and seriousness of their security measures. Because they are obviously effective on their face, and they are obviously effective from their track record.

Now - having said that - I think it's a mistake to see security as a separate, walled-off activity. Once again, as expressed in other threads, it has to be part of a spectrum approach.

Why is security in the US practised so poorly? Well, we all have answers to that, but I'd offer for your consideration the following:

- the system is so overloaded that noone, from the ticketing staff to the security staff to the cabin crew, have the time or the access to pax to practise good security measures.
- the various agencies and businesses involved with security are locked in a bureaucratic and profit-driven p***ing contest which left the actual question of improved security behind years ago. Pax (especially in the US) know this - that's one reason why they are so unhappy about security precautions. Make security a matter of law enforcement, make it a federal matter, put Mary Schiavo in charge, get the damned dollars out of the equation - in other words, make it count and make it real.
- the "broken window" theory. There are lots of rules about flying. Many are seen more in the breach than in the observance. The obvious ones are things like carry-on rules, smoking restrictions, and so forth. When pax see these rules being bent and broken, how can they take others - which are presented to them as "for their safety" - seriously? And this ties back into my first point - how can cabin crew, for example, take security issues seriously when they seem to spend all their boarding time trying to stop people from packing the kitchen sink in the overheads? Make the rules - all the rules - stick. Start putting passengers who quibble at the curb. If you want pax to take the rules seriously and accept them, you must treat them seriously yourself.

I'm frequent SLF in Europe as well as the US. I want better security, in fact, I demand it. In Europe, I at least see what looks like a serious attempt to make me safer, and I'll accept the minor incoveniences on those terms. In the US, I see a pathetic and half-vast show of make-believe which is obviously designed to fulfil the absolute minimum requirement that those doing it can get away with - and sometimes even fails to meet that standard. You bet I kick and moan about the intrusions on my personal freedom and security, as do many other Americans - because we're being sold a pig in a poke, and paying for it with our constitutional rights. It's a lousy bargain, and we're sick of it.

Hey, JMHO. Have a good day.

llater,

llamas

[Wino]

Jackonito,

I have PERSONALLY carried all of the weapons used in the 4 hijacks on both BA and Virgin repeatedly during my travels to have from the UK.

If the people in question had been living in the UK for years you wouldn't have stopped them as well. In case you didn't know, you know have large arab and indian (they look similar) indigineous populations in your country as well. You couldn't have picked this one up either.

You still haven't banned shaving kits.

You almost lost a 747 to one nutter.

a group of 4 unarmed men with a minor amount of hand to hand fight skills could have carried this out. It would have been even easier on the UK airlines as the door is even flimsier. (Trust me, I know, i worked for 3 UK airlines and the door standard is lower)

I have seen your security, and it may make you feel better, but it really won't help in a this situation.

The ONLY thing that could have prevented this is armed guards on the aircraft, and a better solution will be to make sure that there is absolutely no access whatsoever to the cockpit from the cabin. The only way into the cockpit in the future will have to be from its own airstairs.

Hopefully Airlines will have 5 years to get in compliance by modifying their fleet and aircraft not in compliance will not be permitted to operate into the US.

While this cannot be allowed to pass, to not for a second things are going to get better in the short term. Now that it has been demonstrated, watch for copycats.

Wino

[Jackonicko]

Yes. You are quite correct. The incident could have happened anywhere (even here). But are you seriously saying that US domestic security was not woefully lax before Tuesday? If so that's not what the experts seem to be saying.

I have a feeling that we are rushing down a sidestreet here. The real question is as to whether US carriers today have a higher standard of security than all other leading international carriers, thereby justifying the continuing ban.

[Wino]

and what i am saying is that the new standard may include skymarshals, which knowing the declining state of the UK military, they might not have been in a position to have on the aircraft immediately. Or maybe the UK gov't initially said "No security on our aircraft, it's not necesary" To which Uncle Sam said, "righto then, its not necesary for you to fly here."

It may well be that countries with more lax airport security have better ONBOARD security, which is what it is going to take to stop this sort of thing. I suspect that the FAA has looked at the weapons involved and said HOLY****, there is no way to keep these off the aircraft, and have come to the hard realization that onboard security is going to need to be beefed up. Indeed the weapons used in this attack are used in PRISONs every day where the populations are totally controlled and strip searched at length without troubling things like civil liberties. Prisoners are always stabbing each other, if we can't keep the knives out there, we haven't got a chance in the free and open society.

Also, if it was the airport we would be talking about the ground security. I think because it is specific AIRLINES and not SPECIFIC AIRPORTS, that are the subject of the bans we are talking about inflight security, not ground security. Maybe it was as simple as BA saying, "No we don't want to lock the cockpit door, our pax like the view, and the crew likes to talk to the pax.

We don't have all the answers, but protectionism is certainly not the case here.

[Jackonicko]

Excellent posts, and very thought provoking. I'm inclined to change my mind and think that maybe the decision to continue to bar 'foreign airlines' just looked like a piece of 'window dressing' and protectionism, and may even have been wise. But in order to avoid fools like me jumping up and shouting, it would be nice if the exact conditions required for flights into the USA were put on record. (EG not without skymarshals, not without a locked flight deck door). I remain sceptical, but willing to listen to the facts.

Where I can't understand the US position is this obsession with security checks as an infringement of constitutional rights. If it's going to save a single life (especially if that life might be mine) I'd have thought that almost anything goes. I'd rather they had warm hands when they strip-searched me, and would prefer not to be so-searched in front of either a group of nuns (decency), the Village People (fear), or Bridget Fonda (I don't want to shatter her illusions, after all). And naturally, I'd rather they were friendly, efficient and non-judgemental about it. But at the end of the day, what price human life (especially mine!).

[Cyclic Hotline]

I would agree about security being a proirity, but I believe that the number of individuals that have a concern over it is a minority. I also agree with you, that I would submit to any reasonable degree of search to myself or my property.

I stand to be corrected, but I am unaware of constitutional objections to the search of persons and their belongings at an airport, or for that matter private property.

Upon entering a security zone at an airport, you may not possess firearms and you and your property are subject to search as a requirement of entry. There is no constitutional protection from this if you elect to enter the area.

The constitutional right to unlawful search and seizure, is a somewhat different issue.

FOURTH AMENDMENT

SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


In normal life, normal people have no fear of these activities. The requirement and provision of a search warrant, as in the UK, is the legitimate means by which a search may be undertaken, without the agreement of the individual.

[Code Blue]

but I am unaware of constitutional objections to the search of persons and their belongings at an airport

Canadian airport security has a little notice outside the security area to the effect that no-one need submit to being searched if they don't wish to board the plane. You choose to board and thus accept searches - to whatever degree necessary to ensure a thorough job, I would hope.

I too would make a plea for warm hands. :eek:

[GotTheTshirt]

Wino,

Where does the idea that UK cockpit doors are any different from US specs ??
I have never seen it - in fact when the Swissair DC9 were sold to the US the Swiss cockpit door had to be replaced because it contained a steel sheet inside it which was not FAA approved !!
Any way has been shown with many threads the cockpit door is not the answer as no pilots would continue on to arrive with everybody in the back shot dead !!
The only worth while route is a separate compartment with no access to the cokpit from the cabin.

[Capn Lucky]

When everyone is out to get you, Paranoid is good thinking
Unknown