USAAF practices shooting down airliners...

[Blacksheep]

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

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

[tvrfreak]

Any constructive suggestions?

[RUDAS]

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

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

[Beaver Driver]

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

Spock
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn

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

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

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

[126,7]

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

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

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

[witchdoctor]

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

Not got the greatest track record of hostile target identification.

[BOBBLEHAT]

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

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

[ORAC]

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

Everyone, UK, France and Germany included, is practicing such procedures. Read the threads about French intercepts and see here - Germany ponders shoot-down policy for hijacked airliners.

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

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

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

[Blacksheep]

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

[Drop and Stop]

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

[birdbrain]

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

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

[phnuff]

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

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

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

[swamp150]

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

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

[normally right blank]

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

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

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

And now consider all boys dreamjob of fighterpilot:

"Switching to guns!"

Best regards

[PlaneTruth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PT

[normally right blank]

Swamp 150

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

(This procedure was unknown to me before).

Best regards

[OFBSLF]

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

Indeed. Instead, it is just the usual pprune slag-the-Yanks idiocy.

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

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

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

[Spearing Britney]

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

[Ghostflyer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ghost

[normally right blank]

Ghostflyer.

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


Best regards