USAAF practices shooting down airliners...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right there under the stair
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the USAF feel they need to practice targeting airliners in the event they have to deal with that situation then fair enough. Mind you if they're being trained to hit fighter aircraft and enemy bombers they shouldn't need any greater skill or any more training to pop a missile into an airliner.
I may have misunderstood some earlier posts regarding the USAF practicing targeting actual operating airliners, if this is the case then they want their a**es kicking. There are enough aircraft left in the deserts of the USA to find a working one and go and practice on that. If I've misunderstood that then apologies.
I may have misunderstood some earlier posts regarding the USAF practicing targeting actual operating airliners, if this is the case then they want their a**es kicking. There are enough aircraft left in the deserts of the USA to find a working one and go and practice on that. If I've misunderstood that then apologies.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***WARNING***
I've already deleted at least 6 posts from this thread becasue, once again, a few posters are unable to get it into their brains that this is a discussion about the policy of the USAF and others of planning to shoot down a civilian airliner SHOULD the need arise! It is NOT a discussion about the politics of the US, the UK or anyone else.
As usual, it is the minority of posters who have some kind of inbuilt reflex that automatically enrages them so much that they launch into diatribes full of invective and anger about subjects that are actually very remotely peripheral to this topic. DON'T BOTHER as it will be deleted and you will have wasted your efforts. Try counting to ten and then think carefully about your response.
Try reading ORACs reply on page one and then plan a response if you must. As has been stated elsewhere, this is the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumours network and whilst I don't mind input and debate from anyone with an interest in our PROFESSION, I suggest that you will be wasting your time posting on here if I consider the content of your post to be UNPROFESSIONAL or immature/infantile. Please use Jet Blast, if you must, for personal rants about politics. (Although we retain the right to delete whatever we feel is not worth remaining on this website).
As usual, it is the minority of posters who have some kind of inbuilt reflex that automatically enrages them so much that they launch into diatribes full of invective and anger about subjects that are actually very remotely peripheral to this topic. DON'T BOTHER as it will be deleted and you will have wasted your efforts. Try counting to ten and then think carefully about your response.
Try reading ORACs reply on page one and then plan a response if you must. As has been stated elsewhere, this is the PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumours network and whilst I don't mind input and debate from anyone with an interest in our PROFESSION, I suggest that you will be wasting your time posting on here if I consider the content of your post to be UNPROFESSIONAL or immature/infantile. Please use Jet Blast, if you must, for personal rants about politics. (Although we retain the right to delete whatever we feel is not worth remaining on this website).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When we did hijack training in the 90's it was hammered into us that "the safety of passengers and crew is paramount". We were actively discouraged from having a go, or doing anything "foolish".
That has all changed. Any hijacked aircraft must be assumed to be hostile, especially now that a lone madman is very unlikely to be able to take over an airliner. Any responsible goverment must take precautions to protect its polpulace. That the its prime reason for its existance.
Whilst many of us on this side of the pond see armed skymarshals as an unfortunate extension of cowboy culture, it is really only a detail. We can argue furiously, but one hopes logically, about this particular precaution - and others (most of my posts seem to be censored).
However this board appears to be in danger of being hijacked by those espousing extreme views. There are plenty of other places for such rants - this is meant to be a pilots' network. Wittering on about casualities in Vietnam or the conduct of Saddam's thugs is not conducive to a sensible discussion.
That has all changed. Any hijacked aircraft must be assumed to be hostile, especially now that a lone madman is very unlikely to be able to take over an airliner. Any responsible goverment must take precautions to protect its polpulace. That the its prime reason for its existance.
Whilst many of us on this side of the pond see armed skymarshals as an unfortunate extension of cowboy culture, it is really only a detail. We can argue furiously, but one hopes logically, about this particular precaution - and others (most of my posts seem to be censored).
However this board appears to be in danger of being hijacked by those espousing extreme views. There are plenty of other places for such rants - this is meant to be a pilots' network. Wittering on about casualities in Vietnam or the conduct of Saddam's thugs is not conducive to a sensible discussion.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shooting down a airliner would obviously be ther very last resort and the decision to do so comes from the President and very high level goverment.
Whereas I felt very uncomfortable with the concept, I have also seen the lenghts to which ATC and USAF go to before any action is taken and I must admit to believing that it is a viable last action. I would not want to have to make that decision, but as someone else has pointed out, the good of the many.
I think the US has done a lot to deter hi jackers and while some of it some knee jerk and frustrates me, it has also brought increased safety.
I am surprised by the reluctance of other nations to use sky marshalls, which I consider to be a further deterrent!
(PS. Danny, do you know how long it took me to type the post you erased. You probably could have grown a beard
Whereas I felt very uncomfortable with the concept, I have also seen the lenghts to which ATC and USAF go to before any action is taken and I must admit to believing that it is a viable last action. I would not want to have to make that decision, but as someone else has pointed out, the good of the many.
I think the US has done a lot to deter hi jackers and while some of it some knee jerk and frustrates me, it has also brought increased safety.
I am surprised by the reluctance of other nations to use sky marshalls, which I consider to be a further deterrent!
(PS. Danny, do you know how long it took me to type the post you erased. You probably could have grown a beard
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the alternatives?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3484277.stm
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.
If you are worried about the terrorists then killing all the other passengers, how about installing some "sleeping gas dispensers" in civilian airliners. Remotely activated, of course.
If you are worried about the terrorists then killing all the other passengers, how about installing some "sleeping gas dispensers" in civilian airliners. Remotely activated, of course.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This must help make the flying public to feel reassured, the bus is begining to sound good!
So after you have been frisked, xrayed and had your possesions pawed. If you are lucky enough not to be hijacked you should also realise there is the chance that some suit does make an error and have the airforce blow you out of the skies.
Whoopee !!!!
Not many alternatives but still rather disconcerting.
So after you have been frisked, xrayed and had your possesions pawed. If you are lucky enough not to be hijacked you should also realise there is the chance that some suit does make an error and have the airforce blow you out of the skies.
Whoopee !!!!
Not many alternatives but still rather disconcerting.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt that this is technically possible, even to the extent of having no flightdeck crew, but you would then be at the mercy of ground based technically minded terrorists who may be able to do more damage than before (and live to do it again).
I somehow think that an occupied flightdeck with a locked door is more preferable.
I also feel that it would be unlikely that a 9/11 type event would happen again in the near future as the suspicions of the crew and passengers would be aroused much earlier with "spur of the moment" action taken.
I'm afraid that today's terrorist is more imaginative and sadly will plot to carry out the act that no-one expects again-and we can't prepare for that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about technology that enables the plane to be controlled remotely while disabling the cockpit controls? It would have to be very secure, of course, but I think it's possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt that this is technically possible, even to the extent of having no flightdeck crew, but you would then be at the mercy of ground based technically minded terrorists who may be able to do more damage than before (and live to do it again).
I somehow think that an occupied flightdeck with a locked door is more preferable.
I also feel that it would be unlikely that a 9/11 type event would happen again in the near future as the suspicions of the crew and passengers would be aroused much earlier with "spur of the moment" action taken.
I'm afraid that today's terrorist is more imaginative and sadly will plot to carry out the act that no-one expects again-and we can't prepare for that.
Whatever happens,.. happens!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 19' N, 82' W
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the spirit of searching for alternative solutions!
Some time ago I read something about "smart Guns" that could only be fired if the "owner" was holding it, I think it was some kind of palm print which served as the identifyer.
Perhaps the same Idea could be used with the controls of aircraft, which would only respond to the registered crew's inputs. There could be some initialising procedure when the crew for a given flight gets on board, all subsequent inputs would have to carry the "signature" of one or more of those crewmembers. in the event that inputs of non registered origin was being made, onboard control of the aircraft would be locked out and the aircraft would have to be "flown" to a safe landing from a ground position.
I realize that I am just rambling here, hoping to come up with something, it is clear to me that you could not just use a palm print, because individuals that are prepared to give their life for a cause, would not baulk at cutting off someones hand or eye, just to be able to carry out their plans.
Some time ago I read something about "smart Guns" that could only be fired if the "owner" was holding it, I think it was some kind of palm print which served as the identifyer.
Perhaps the same Idea could be used with the controls of aircraft, which would only respond to the registered crew's inputs. There could be some initialising procedure when the crew for a given flight gets on board, all subsequent inputs would have to carry the "signature" of one or more of those crewmembers. in the event that inputs of non registered origin was being made, onboard control of the aircraft would be locked out and the aircraft would have to be "flown" to a safe landing from a ground position.
I realize that I am just rambling here, hoping to come up with something, it is clear to me that you could not just use a palm print, because individuals that are prepared to give their life for a cause, would not baulk at cutting off someones hand or eye, just to be able to carry out their plans.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New worry on the topic:
News reports today revolving around the BA cancellations identify another terrorist mode, one of decidedly desperate measures.
The aircraft would be overtaken by several confederates getting on a flight with a disassembled bomb (reassembled on the flight). The report indicated the bomb would be used to detonate the flight over populated areas or to distribute nuclear material (dirty bomb) across same.
I have posted the thoughts of some of the fighter pukes who may have to shoot at an airliner. I work with many these guys at my airline. They are all level-headed and ready to do the job should the need arise. Make no mistake: They are very good at what they do. None of them relish the thought, however. As airliner drivers ourselves, we know what it would be like to be on the receiving end. But to a man, we'd rather our bits be scattered in the farm fields short of an intended target than using them as more mass aimed at some undefended target full of civilians.
War sucks. That's why I support getting it over as quickly as possible.
PT
News reports today revolving around the BA cancellations identify another terrorist mode, one of decidedly desperate measures.
The aircraft would be overtaken by several confederates getting on a flight with a disassembled bomb (reassembled on the flight). The report indicated the bomb would be used to detonate the flight over populated areas or to distribute nuclear material (dirty bomb) across same.
I have posted the thoughts of some of the fighter pukes who may have to shoot at an airliner. I work with many these guys at my airline. They are all level-headed and ready to do the job should the need arise. Make no mistake: They are very good at what they do. None of them relish the thought, however. As airliner drivers ourselves, we know what it would be like to be on the receiving end. But to a man, we'd rather our bits be scattered in the farm fields short of an intended target than using them as more mass aimed at some undefended target full of civilians.
War sucks. That's why I support getting it over as quickly as possible.
PT
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SV Marie Celeste
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that if you practice shooting down Mig's and f16's you shouldn't need that much practice to shoot down a b757? It is a bit lke saying 'SAS practices shooting down OAP feeding ducks'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm...
Ok, hypothetical question here.
Supposing a 911-style attck was attempted again, and the situation is much like the "Let's roll" aircraft.
The hijackers have managed to kill/incapacitate the flight crew and the sykmarshalls, but the remaining pax have overcome the terrorists and taken back control of the aircraft.
One passenger has a vauge idea of how to fly, and has a few hours in a single. Do the authorities still decide to shoot them down, because it's probably going to crash, better to do it in a field, rather than risk a much greater disaster?
I'm presuming here that no "remote desert facility" is within reach.
Supposing a 911-style attck was attempted again, and the situation is much like the "Let's roll" aircraft.
The hijackers have managed to kill/incapacitate the flight crew and the sykmarshalls, but the remaining pax have overcome the terrorists and taken back control of the aircraft.
One passenger has a vauge idea of how to fly, and has a few hours in a single. Do the authorities still decide to shoot them down, because it's probably going to crash, better to do it in a field, rather than risk a much greater disaster?
I'm presuming here that no "remote desert facility" is within reach.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suspect that, once there is an indication that the aircraft is under seige, calling-off the shoot-down would be a tough sell. I'd guess that it would be difficult to convince the folks outside the aircraft that everything's once again OK inside the airframe...
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think that if you practice shooting down Mig's and f16's you shouldn't need that much practice to shoot down a b757?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the shooting down itself which is difficult but the interception and the correct identification of the target.
I would say training on this is definitively not wrong.
My view always was and still is, the more you practice the less chances of snafus. As I always say, in the KAL007, if the soviet fighter pilot had seen before the diference between a 707 and a 747 from below, a few hundred people might possibly sill be alive today.
As to the remote controlling of an airliner from the ground, Technically this is relatively easy . But even more easy is programming an aircraft to land somewhere ( on the ground long before it departs ), as the 2 global hawks UAVs currently stationned in Nordholz in North germany would tell you.
One of them flew direct from Edwards, California to Germany and even made the autonomous decision to perform a go around ( excessive cross wind ) before executing a perfect landing.
For those who do not know ,the global Hawk is about the size of an A318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would think that if you practice shooting down Mig's and f16's you shouldn't need that much practice to shoot down a b757?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the shooting down itself which is difficult but the interception and the correct identification of the target.
I would say training on this is definitively not wrong.
My view always was and still is, the more you practice the less chances of snafus. As I always say, in the KAL007, if the soviet fighter pilot had seen before the diference between a 707 and a 747 from below, a few hundred people might possibly sill be alive today.
As to the remote controlling of an airliner from the ground, Technically this is relatively easy . But even more easy is programming an aircraft to land somewhere ( on the ground long before it departs ), as the 2 global hawks UAVs currently stationned in Nordholz in North germany would tell you.
One of them flew direct from Edwards, California to Germany and even made the autonomous decision to perform a go around ( excessive cross wind ) before executing a perfect landing.
For those who do not know ,the global Hawk is about the size of an A318.
Well - its a similar span but more like a third the length and height...
If your ground station is controlling lots of airliners then hijacking, blowing up or disrupting the the signal will affect hundreds of airliners.
If your airliner is routinely and reliably landing itself without pilots on board then you'd better be very sure that nobody maliciously disrupts your ILS transmitters.
The safest, easiest and cheapest option is to have two splendid chaps, good at flying aeroplanes, personally at the controls of each airliner.
Cheers
WWW
If your ground station is controlling lots of airliners then hijacking, blowing up or disrupting the the signal will affect hundreds of airliners.
If your airliner is routinely and reliably landing itself without pilots on board then you'd better be very sure that nobody maliciously disrupts your ILS transmitters.
The safest, easiest and cheapest option is to have two splendid chaps, good at flying aeroplanes, personally at the controls of each airliner.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Watcher, great info. Thanks!
Wee Weasley Welshman, agreed that it's generally best to have two splendid chaps in the cockpit. But I think we are talking about what back-up measures could be in place to protect those on the ground and those in the air, should these two splendid chaps be forcibly removed from the controls.
Fighter jets may or may not make it to the plane in time. They also may not shoot the right plane down in the dark or in crowded airspace, and they may even end up shooting the plane down over populated areas anyways.
Also, once it's decided to bring an aircraft down, there will be a massive reluctance on the part of "authorities" to withdraw from the "shoot-em down" stance as hinted at by av8boy and BigHitDC--there's not many people who would be willing to take the blame for another Sept. 11 type of disaster by making an incorrect judgement and recalling the fighters, even when there is significant doubt about who is controlling the plane. There won't be many survivors to refute the logic, flawed or not.
Ability to control the aircraft remotely seems to be a much cleaner solution.
Wee Weasley Welshman, agreed that it's generally best to have two splendid chaps in the cockpit. But I think we are talking about what back-up measures could be in place to protect those on the ground and those in the air, should these two splendid chaps be forcibly removed from the controls.
Fighter jets may or may not make it to the plane in time. They also may not shoot the right plane down in the dark or in crowded airspace, and they may even end up shooting the plane down over populated areas anyways.
Also, once it's decided to bring an aircraft down, there will be a massive reluctance on the part of "authorities" to withdraw from the "shoot-em down" stance as hinted at by av8boy and BigHitDC--there's not many people who would be willing to take the blame for another Sept. 11 type of disaster by making an incorrect judgement and recalling the fighters, even when there is significant doubt about who is controlling the plane. There won't be many survivors to refute the logic, flawed or not.
Ability to control the aircraft remotely seems to be a much cleaner solution.
Last edited by tvrfreak; 16th Feb 2004 at 04:34.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that some airlines have decided to arm commercial aircraft it is also possible that fighters may have to engage armed commercial craft, Wow now its getting really interesting!
