Norad incompetance in Action.

[debunker9145]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6049008.ece

This proves Norad is an incompetant system, and it should not be a surprise that Norad failed on 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

excuse me?

1. Where does it show NORAD incompetence?
2. Please see the many links here on the JREF concerning NORAD's actions on 9/11.
3. You'll have to do better than a link to a tiny article and a subjective comment.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

NORAD contacted the USAF and had Jets scrambled. At that point, what did NORAD do wrong? You do realize that a successful intercept is nothing more than to make contact with the jet and provide orders for it to land. A successful intercept does not mean shoot the plane down.


TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Debunker, if you're not going to even bother to comment on the content of the link, I'm not going to read it. This is just link dumping.

[drkitten]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6049008.ece

This proves Norad is an incompetant system, and it should not be a surprise that Norad failed on 9/11.


I must admit that I'm not seeing the incompetence. The jet was detected, interceptors were scrambled and made contact, and the pilot refused to land, at which point the interceptors remained in contact until the pilot made a (safe) landing and was arrested.

What did NORAD do wrong? Why should they have shot him down (and risk civilian casualties) when they could just keep him wrapped up and taken him peacefully (as they did)?

[Metullus]

A guy steals what was probably a bare-bones Cessna 150 and it is somehow a failure for NORAD that the USAF does not shoot it down?

Wow.

[Toke]

So, the military is not particulary triggerhappy.
Fine with me.
Guess they took him for a thief and not a terrorist, maybe it is apparent on his flightpath.

[AJM8125]

Hmm. The only incompetence I can identify is debunker9145's.

[grmcdorman]

Latest word on this incident is that the thief was hoping to be shot down: Man who stole plane says he hoped to be shot down (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/614939)

Incidentally, if you read only the title of debunker9145's linked article: Fighter jets chase stolen plane over three US states - you may get the "incompetence" impression. If you read the reports, though - including that one - the fighters were not only in visual contact, but made visual (non-radio) signals to the pilot: The pilot was flying erratically and didn't communicate with the fighter pilots, Kucharek said at the Aerospace Defense Command.

The pilot acknowledged seeing the F-16s but didn't obey their nonverbal commands to follow them, Kucharek said.

[fitzgibbon]

Does this 'incident' remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode with Sideshow Bob snitching the Wright Brothers plane?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/02/23/silver-dart-cp-w6295796.jpg

[911files]

Sounds very competent to me. The police don't shoot up stolen cars that they pursue. If the chase becomes dangerous, the put out spikes or try controlled crash techniques to stop them. Why should F-16's shoot down a plane that is not an threat to someone or something? They intercepted, followed and were ready to take action if required. Looks like they did a good job to me.

[kookbreaker]

So debunker is unhappy because NORAD didn't go KAL007 on this little plane?

[Pinch]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6049008.ece

This proves Norad is an incompetant system, and it should not be a surprise that Norad failed on 9/11.

A more complex version of "suicide by cop" - but in this case "suicide by NORAD". Too bad NORAD didn't want to waste a missile that probably cost more than the aircraft did. I suppose shooting it down with a guns solution would have worked, but you typically don't want stray 20MM rounds arcing off across towards the horizon. They obey Newton's law, eventually, and no telling where they'd land.

What is interesting is what very likely went on behind the scenes here. NORAD and the command authorities were very likely told what this target was and they (NORAD) made the determination that there was no *need* to shoot this Cessna 172 down, so why do it? A little-over-1-ton Cessna puttering along at 120 mph or whatever the top speed of a 172 is not exactly threatening anything. Looks like NORAD and the command authorities did a fine job here.

[fitzgibbon]

Seems like the Wisconsin cheese industry might've been threatened by this misguided foray.

Or judging from his flightpath, this could've been a subtle promotion for the upcoming film version of "Due South"

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20090406/wstolen0406/0406planegraphic188.jpg

[Alareth]

Can you imagine the headlines if the Cessna had been shot down? The villification of the military and the government for such a drastic action against an unarmed civilian aircraft by the press would be overwhelming.

[MG1962]

So, the military is not particulary triggerhappy.
Fine with me.
Guess they took him for a thief and not a terrorist, maybe it is apparent on his flightpath.

The interview I saw this morning on CNN said NORAD had a shoot down senario on the table. However they wanted evidence he was after critical infra-structure or a threat to civilians before pulling the trigger.

So rather than being incompetent, I think they showed a measure of control that was very comforting

[Bobert]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6049008.ece

This proves Norad is an incompetant system, and it should not be a surprise that Norad failed on 9/11.
Of course it does!
:rolleyes:
And if they shot down the plane they would have failed and you truther lunatics would have claimed they overreacted.
There is no winning with you truthers is there?

[debunker9145]

I wish there was a way i can delete posts.

[Bobert]

Perhaps he was fleeing into the US because he had super duper smoking gun evidence that 9-11 was an inside job?

[T.A.M.]

I wish there was a way i can delete posts.

Well if we are missing the point, rather than delete posts, tell us where we missed your point. All you posted was a link and a two line opinion, which the majority of people disagree with.

So unless your comments were meant to be completely sarcastic, and instead you meant that NORAD was competent, I do not get how any of us MISSED YOUR POINT!

TAM:)

[Reheat]

I wish there was a way i can delete posts.

I wish there was a way that I could delete your posts.

[debunker9145]

I guess i was playing conspiracy theorist. Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane. It is not something that occures spontaneously.

[fitzgibbon]

There ain't no way of convincing twoofers of ANYTHING if they don't feel like buying into it. Even a cursory perusal of JREF (an especially anything involving Ultima1) would have disabused you of that notion

[Toke]

The interview I saw this morning on CNN said NORAD had a shoot down senario on the table. However they wanted evidence he was after critical infra-structure or a threat to civilians before pulling the trigger.

So rather than being incompetent, I think they showed a measure of control that was very comforting

Yes, that was pretty much my point.

[Reheat]

Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane.

Did you even read the article at the link you posted?

It is not something that occures spontaneously.

Tell us how it occurs...

[fitzgibbon]

Reheat,

I think his intentions were well-meant. Just trying to leverage Payne Stewart and show that Hollywood representation of military response is only representative of Hollywood

[T.A.M.]

I guess i was playing conspiracy theorist. Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane. It is not something that occures spontaneously.

You have to be more careful, both with your sarcasm, and with your examples. Properly placed comments about what you initially posted would have served you well in this regard.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

I guess i was playing conspiracy theorist. Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane. It is not something that occures spontaneously.

Actually the article says that fighters first intercepted him at the Wisconsin-Michigan (Upper Peninsula) border. If you look at a map and compare that to where he was coming from that seems reasonably prompt. I don't think it's generally useful to compare response times post-9-11 to pre-9-11.

[Toke]

Hollywood representation of military response is only representative of Hollywood It does look like the Dr. Strangelove generals were kept in the straithjackets.:D

[fitzgibbon]

Well, if one of the generals had the surname Turgidson, I'd be worried :D

[Reheat]

I don't think it's generally useful to compare response times post-9-11 to pre-9-11.

What gives you the impression there is any difference?

[Minadin]

The stolen plane landed near my burned down cabin (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4530851#post4530851). Coincidence? I think not. 3-17 was an 'eh' job.

[Brainster]

What gives you the impression there is any difference?

9-11.

[JoeyDonuts]

I guess i was playing conspiracy theorist. Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane. It is not something that occures spontaneously.

NORAD performed admirably in this situation, unlike your attempt at satire.

[Reheat]

I don't think it's generally useful to compare response times post-9-11 to pre-9-11.

What gives you the impression there is any difference?

9-11.

There are more alert aircraft now at different locations, but the response times (alert reaction time) are the same pre/post 9/11.

[rwguinn]

Actually the article says that fighters first intercepted him at the Wisconsin-Michigan (Upper Peninsula) border. If you look at a map and compare that to where he was coming from that seems reasonably prompt. I don't think it's generally useful to compare response times post-9-11 to pre-9-11.
It's also useful to compare the speeds of a single-engine, prop-driven Cessna 172 (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/production/cessna172.jpg) with a Boeing 757 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/bits/posts/boeing757.jpg) or the Lear 35 (http://www.privatejetcharters.com/new%20planes/lear35-2.jpg) that Payne Stewart was in...

ETA: According to the original report (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=c65b880e-480e-4896-bfcf-7d3a6e5028cc&)
The plane left Canadian Airspace at approximately 15:30, and was intercepted by 2 F-16's at 16:43, or about 120 miles later...

[Reheat]

What we don't yet know is when the Thunder Bay Airport folks knew the aircraft had been stolen and what time that information got into the US system. Thunder Bay is a controlled airport, but it is not illegal to depart an airport under VFR without a flight plan.

This incident justified a NORAD response with armed fighters. In contrast, the Payne Stewart incident did not. A T-38 could have done the same job in the Stewart incident as well as an F-15, not considering fuel endurance or loiter time.

That's one of the main reasons the procedures specify that the FAA notify the NMCC and let them decide who should respond or if there should be a response.

The Wisconsin ANG obviously had some fighters ready to go (but, likely not on alert) to respond this quickly, so Brainster may have a point. There is really no reason that all of the ANG units (and Active Duty for that matter) can not keep a few aircraft loaded with TP ammo for a reasonably quick response. They normally have aircraft that are fully fueled, and the TP ammo is normally loaded for training anyway, so it's reasonable to keep some loaded all of the time.

They can not keep aircraft loaded with HE ammo or missiles unless they are in a protected shelter or a hanger of some kind and under tight security conditions. However, TP Ammo does not pose those type of restrictions and it will do the job if they need to use it.

We still need to use the NORAD alert aircraft wisely and not commit them for "willy nilly" reasons when another aircraft could do the job effectively. I'm sure more thought has gone into this issue post 9/11 as opposed to pre 9/11.

[JoeyDonuts]

They can not keep aircraft loaded with HE ammo or missiles unless they are in a protected shelter or a hanger of some kind and under tight security conditions. However, TP Ammo does not pose those type of restrictions and it will do the job if they need to use it.

I'm not that familiar with USAF weapons terminology, but I'm inferring that 'TP Ammo' is inert? Basically just a big ol' 20mm bullet?

[parky76]

NORAD incompetance? The USAF shot down flight 93. Don't you read Prisonplanet?

[Reheat]

Yep, just a lead bullet.... TP is an acronym for "Target Practice" or maybe it's "Training Practice". I don't recall which and it's not really important as it's simply just a lead bullet and nothing more.

An F-16 holds about 500 rounds and at 100 round per second that's a lot of mojo.....

[ULTIMA1]

Yep, just a lead bullet.... TP is an acronym for "Target Practice" or maybe it's "Training Practice". I don't recall which and it's not really important as it's simply just a lead bullet and nothing more.

An F-16 holds about 500 rounds and at 100 round per second that's a lot of mojo.....


And they would penatrate the thin aluminum skin of an airliner like butter.

[AJM8125]

And they would penatrate the thin aluminum skin of an airliner like butter.


Abandoning the FOIA thread now?

[Reheat]

Did your daddy tell you that?

[R.Mackey]

Ignoring the usual Truth Movement crap, I actually have something to add here...

Two days ago I attended a talk by Maj. Gen. Michael Kostelnik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Kostelnik), who is chief of aviation at the Department of Homeland Security, at the AIAA Infotech conference. His talk focused on the capabilities and operational flexibility of DHS assets, and he spent a lot of time discussing the response to this potentially dangerous flight as a fresh and relevant example.

As he explained, the response to this flight was quite a bit more detailed than the news organizations reported. The F-16 intercepts were well publicized, for one, but there were many other assets in play. One of them was a pair of Cessna 550 aircraft that took turns shadowing the potential threat aircraft over nearly its entire journey. This is a much smaller and slower aircraft, capable of simply tailing it whereas the faster F-16's would have to thatchweave all over the sky, but nonetheless fitted with advanced sensors (i.e. RADAR and FLIR) and, more importantly, communication packages allowing them to coordinate response of NORAD, fighters, FAA, and law enforcement on the ground. One of these aircraft remained on station after the threat aircraft ditched to spot people running and coordinate arrests, or if the worst had happened relay accurate data back to crisis management centers in real time.

No defense or security system is ever perfect, but to call this "incompetence" is simply wrong. We have learned quite a bit since September 11th, primarily in communication and coordination between agencies. This ultimately gave them the power to assess this particular case and make the right call, rather than just splash the airplane.

[beachnut]

good post

[tfk]

So, the military is not particulary triggerhappy.
Fine with me.
Guess they took him for a thief and not a terrorist, maybe it is apparent on his flightpath.


And it's a damn good thing that they are not trigger-happy. Otherwise, 9/11 would have ended a lot worse than it did.

This was a very good article from an unexpected (on my part) source. You can also listen to recordings of the actual radio chatter. It's pretty compelling...

The NORAD Tapes
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

Excerpt:
___

"You were just so mad"

On the ops floor, everyone is staring at CNN on the overhead screen. Seeing the first pictures of the Pentagon in flames is gut-wrenching. Nasypany's voice can be heard cursing in frustration: "Goddammit! I can't even protect my N.C.A. [National Capital Area]." You hear troops prod one another to stay focused.

CITINO: O.K.—let's watch our guys, Huck. Not the TV.

"The more it went on, the more unbelievable it got, and then the one that did the Pentagon," Dooley told me, "we just couldn't believe it. You were just so mad that you couldn't stop these guys and so you're looking for the next one. Where are they going next?"

It looks like Washington again. Three minutes after the Pentagon is hit, Scoggins, at Boston Center, is back on the phone. The Boston controllers are now tracking Delta 1989—Boston to Las Vegas—which fits the same profile as the other hijackings: cross-country, out of Boston, lots of fuel, and possibly off course. But this one's different from the others in one key respect: the plane's beacon code is still working. In this chase, neads will have a chance, as the excitement in Dooley's last line reflects:

09:40:57
ROUNTREE: Delta 89, that's the hijack. They think it's possible hijack.
DOOLEY: ****!
ROUNTREE: South of Cleveland. We have a code on him now.
DOOLEY: Good. Pick it up! Find it!
MALE TECH: Delta what?
ROUNTREE: Eight nine—a Boeing 767.
DOOLEY: ****, another one—

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

They quickly find the plane on radar—it's just south of Toledo—and begin alerting other F.A.A. centers. They're not sure where the plane is headed. If it's Chicago, they're in big trouble, because they don't have any planes close enough to cut it off. Marr and Nasypany order troops to call Air National Guard bases in that area to see if anyone can launch fighters. A base in Selfridge, Michigan, offers up two unarmed fighters that are already flying, on their way back from a training mission.

09:54:54
SELFRIDGE FLIGHT OFFICER: Here—here's what we can do. At a minimum, we can keep our guys airborne. I mean, they don't have—they don't have any guns or missiles or anything on board. But we—
neads TECH: It's a presence, though.

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

But neads is victim again to an increasingly long information lag. Even before Rountree gets the urgent call that Delta 1989 is hijacked, a civilian air-traffic controller in Cleveland in contact with the pilot has determined that the flight is fine—that Delta 1989 isn't a hijacking after all.

Meanwhile, however, neads has gotten a call from a norad unit in Canada with yet another suspected hijacking headed south across the border toward Washington. In the barrage of information and misinformation, it becomes increasingly difficult for the controllers to keep count of how many suspected hijackings are pending. So far, it is known that three have hit buildings, but given the uncertainty about the fates of American 11 and American 77—no one knows yet that this is the plane that hit the Pentagon—the sense at neads is that there are possibly three hijacked jets still out there, and who knows how many more yet to be reported. At this point, no one on the military side is aware that United 93 has been hijacked.

Then, over a crackly radio, one of the Langley fighter pilots, now in a combat air patrol over Washington, is calling in urgently.

10:07:08
PILOT: Baltimore is saying something about an aircraft over the White House. Any words?
CITINO: Negative. Stand by. Do you copy that, SD [Major Fox]? Center said there's an aircraft over the White House. Any words?
FOX: M.C.C. [Nasypany], we've got an aircraft reported over the White House.

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

A fourth hijacking? Nasypany, who's running full throttle, replies instinctively.

NASYPANY: Intercept!
FOX: Intercept!
NASYPANY: Intercept and divert that aircraft away from there.

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

On one channel, you hear a weapons tech very dramatically hailing the fighters and ordering the intercept.

CITINO: Quit 2-5 [Langley fighters], mission is intercept aircraft over White House. Use F.A.A. for guidance.
FOX: Divert the aircraft away from the White House. Intercept and divert it.
CITINO: Quit 2-5, divert the aircraft from the White House.
PILOT: Divert the aircraft.…

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

Meanwhile, Nasypany calls the Battle Cab. With a plane headed straight for the White House, Nasypany needs an update on his rules of engagement—fast.

10:07:39
NASYPANY: Do you hear that? That aircraft over the White House. What's the word? … Intercept and what else? … Aircraft over the White House.

PLAY | PAUSE | STOP

The "what else?" is the big question: do they have the authority to shoot? The request skips up the chain to Arnold.
___

and one more:
___

Poring over time-stamped transcripts that undercut the Pentagon's official story, one is tempted to get caught up in a game of "gotcha." For those on the operations floor in the thick of it that day, however, the cold revelations of hindsight are a bitter pill to swallow.

Listening to the tapes, you hear that inside neads there was no sense that the attack was over with the crash of United 93; instead, the alarms go on and on. False reports of hijackings, and real responses, continue well into the afternoon, though civilian air-traffic controllers had managed to clear the skies of all commercial and private aircraft by just after 12 p.m. The fighter pilots over New York and D.C. (and later Boston and Chicago) would spend hours darting around their respective skylines intercepting hundreds of aircraft they deemed suspicious. Meanwhile, Arnold, Marr, and Nasypany were launching as many additional fighters as they could, placing some 300 armed jets in protective orbits over every major American city by the following morning. No one at neads would go home until late on the night of the 11th, and then only for a few hours of sleep.

Five years after the attack, the controversy around United 93 clearly eats at Arnold, Marr, Nasypany, and several other military people I spoke with, who resent both conspiracy theories that accuse them of shooting the flight down and the 9/11 commission's conclusion that they were chasing ghosts and never stood a chance of intercepting any of the real hijackings. "I don't know about time lines and stuff like that," Nasypany, who is now a lieutenant colonel, said in one of our last conversations. "I knew where 93 was. I don't care what [the commission says]. I mean, I care, but—I made that assessment to put my fighters over Washington. Ninety-three was on its way in. I knew there was another one out there. I knew there was somebody else coming in—whatever you want to call it. And I knew what I was going to have to end up doing." When you listen to the tapes, it couldn't feel more horrendously true.

When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."

On the day, however, there was no time for sentiment. Within 30 seconds of the report that United 93 has crashed, killing everyone on board, once again, the phone is ringing.

10:15:30
POWELL: Southeast just called. There's another possible hijack in our area.…
NASYPANY: All right. **** …

___

These guys were FURIOUS. Like all Americans that day. They ran HUNDREDS of intercepts that day. It is a damn good thing that they acted professionally, controlled their anger and were not trigger happy.

[tfk]

db,

OK, you've gotten whacked about enough for being way too subtle. I'll take you at your word that you were being sarcastic. Unfortunately, that doesn't come thru in the written medium. Give us a clue next time...


I guess i was playing conspiracy theorist. Those fighter jets did not intercept the plan til it was crossing the border with Missouri. THey did not intercept it right away. I guess i am trying to prove that contrary to truthers beliefs it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane. It is not something that occures spontaneously.



And you've still missed a key point. It is NOT true that, up to & including 9/11, "...it actually takes a little bit of time to intercept a plane". It didn't "take a little time" because, with one exception (Paine Stewart), up to 9/11 it was not done with A/C that originated in the US.

Reheat, my flight instructor told me that if a plane wandered into a MOA, then he'd get an escort. Can you elaborate on any real world events like that?

BTW, this whole episode is reminiscent of Mathias Rust, who flew into perhaps the most heavily guarded and trigger happy location on the planet & landed (also a C172, IIRC) in Red Square.

tom

[Reheat]

Reheat, my flight instructor told me that if a plane wandered into a MOA, then he'd get an escort. Can you elaborate on any real world events like that?

I doubt it. To the best of my knowledge it's never happened. It probably has, but I know of none. Heck, many of them are so dangerous folks don't dare violate them.

I've know of some aircraft getting close and all that happened was that all activity in the MOA stopped until the aircraft was well clear. Active MOA's are monitored by ATC and the folks flying in them.

An exception would be Area 51. Even unauthorized military traffic must land at Nellis AFB if a violation occurs. A civilian aircraft would likely be intercepted, escorted/directed to land and investigated.

I do recall some VFR type traffic getting close and even below some of the strictly flying training MOA's (Pilot Training Bases), but ATC monitors them and sometimes requests an aircraft to check them out. I can not ever recall anyone flying in or through at the restricted altitudes.

[Cheap Shot]

Reheat, my flight instructor told me that if a plane wandered into a MOA, then he'd get an escort. Can you elaborate on any real world events like that?


Early 1990's W-107 off the coast of Atlantic City, an AirTrans I beleive was given a point-out to FACSFAC VACAPES from ZNY, VACAPES forgot to tell the two F-16's off of ACY, well one of them went to see who was in his airspace, needless to say after a couple of TCAS events from the AIRTrans due to the F-16 trying to follow him, it made for an interesting situation.

[Reheat]

I think Airport Traffic Areas are more prone to violations than MOA's. I recall several of those.

MOA's are well clear of Airways and Jet Routes, so there is very little likelihood of any airliner traffic or even IFR light aircraft traffic violating them.

I suspect that most folks who fly around local areas know about the MOA's and are rightfully respectful of them. They are, in fact, very dangerous for non-participating aircraft.

The floor of most MOA's take into consideration normal low flying civilian light aircraft. There are exceptions to that for areas such as bombing ranges, the Red Flag area in Nevada and perhaps a few others.

Contrary to popular twoofer belief the AF does not conduct Intercepts on civilian aircraft except under very specific circumstances. The vast majority of those would be in the ADIZ as has been repeated over and over in many threads on this Forum. It is simply not worth taxpayer funds to do so as ATC can usually track an aircraft that has flown in unauthorized airspace and they do provide the FAA with the information if the FAA desires to pursue it.

I am aware of several obvious "drug smuggling" incidents, however, the information was simply passed to the FAA to do with as they desired. Rest assured your AF and your tax $$ is not routinely wasted on futile pursuits of what amounts to an innocent mistake or even criminal activity, except in very, very rare cases. These incidents are not ignored, but are dealt with appropriately by reporting them. There are quite simply more important "fish to fry".

It is worthwhile to mention again that prior to 9/11 a hijacking was not an AIR SOVEREIGNTY issue at all, it was a criminal issue. It was not until after the second WTC tower was hit in NY that it was obviously an attack on the US. Prior to that, I'm surprised there was the rapid response that occurred from the Otis fighters. As most folks in this Forum know, criticism of the 9/11 NORAD response is based on hindsight, not foresight.....

[ozeco41]

Well said Reheat.

[JoeyDonuts]

Early 1990's W-107 off the coast of Atlantic City, an AirTrans I beleive was given a point-out to FACSFAC VACAPES from ZNY, VACAPES forgot to tell the two F-16's off of ACY, well one of them went to see who was in his airspace, needless to say after a couple of TCAS events from the AIRTrans due to the F-16 trying to follow him, it made for an interesting situation.

It wasn't 'hot' at the time was it? That would make for a 'training accident' in the wrong set of circumstances.

[Cheap Shot]

It wasn't 'hot' at the time was it? That would make for a 'training accident' in the wrong set of circumstances.


Atcually it was, it was a Nations Air by the way and it happened in 1997 here is a link.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/07/nyregion/f-16-s-swoop-in-on-jetliner-and-force-evasive-actions.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

We had a little get together with the Navy back then in Washington D.C. to discuss our procedures.

[jaydeehess]

Actually the article says that fighters first intercepted him at the Wisconsin-Michigan (Upper Peninsula) border. If you look at a map and compare that to where he was coming from that seems reasonably prompt. I don't think it's generally useful to compare response times post-9-11 to pre-9-11.

So they intercepted shortly after he had crossed Lake Superior?

If the T.Bay airport did not alert NORAD first(and they would likely send out the alert to all ATC and FSS first), NORAD would have seen the aircraft, cross referenced it agaisnt filed cross border flight plans and then(since there was no plan) determined that an intercept was required. Since T.Bay sits on the north shore of Lake Superior that means that the plane would have about enough time to cross the lake before NORAD sent up aircraft.

Now if he had stolen the aircraft from Greenland he'd have been intercepted before he saw mainland Canada.

[jaydeehess]

When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."


this underlines it for me.

you have the guy who will have to relay a shoot down order finding out that he did not have to do that primarily because the actions of the passengers resulted in the plane crashing into an uninhabited area. What nightmares must he now have.
Think about this;
if a shoot down auth had come down and he had relayed that to the fighters and they intercepted flight 93 and shot it down BUT the passengers had already successfully regained control of the a/c. This would be one of the 'what ifs' that would drive a person insane if you let it.

[Reheat]

Think about this;
if a shoot down auth had come down and he had relayed that to the fighters and they intercepted flight 93 and shot it down BUT the passengers had already successfully regained control of the a/c. This would be one of the 'what ifs' that would drive a person insane if you let it.

Not very likely! Even the flight attendants know how to operate those radios (at least some do) and it is also likely that they also knew how to turn on the transponder too.

The interceptor pilots can also look in the cockpit and in any of the passenger windows. Heck, if I were caught up in that situation I'd probably "moon" the intercept pilots. That would get their attention and also let them know that everything was OK.... :D:D

[jaydeehess]

Not very likely! Even the flight attendants know how to operate those radios (at least some do) and it is also likely that they also knew how to turn on the transponder too.

The interceptor pilots can also look in the cockpit and in any of the passenger windows. Heck, if I were caught up in that situation I'd probably "moon" the intercept pilots. That would get their attention and also let them know that everything was OK.... :D:D

Good point. I suppose he could tell himself that, but don't you think that the fact that he was close to having to relay a rules of engagement that included sending several dozen innocents to their deaths would weigh on his psyche?
this is a hostage situation like no other. In a 'normal' hijacking/hostage situation the military/law enforcement charges in and saves the hostages and kills, sometimes capturing the hijackers. In this case the hijacking/hostage taking would end only by killing everyone. That is a nightmare that I am very glad will never haunt me.
At least ICBM operators train so often that its motions they have performed many times, and if it came down to it there are two of them turning keys and pushing buttons.

ETA: In thinikng about it the ICBM situation is useful in another way as well. In the case of a nuke war would 'survivors' hail the leaders of the nation that 'wins', the leaders that ordered the launches? Certainly there would be political cost (assuming there is such a thing as politics in the aftermath of a nuke exchange) How would the general populace feel towards those who pushed the buttons and turned the keys? In similar fashion, though much much lower scale, those who shot down a plane full of American citizens, those who gave the orders, those who passed the orders along the chain of command, would not be seen as having "won" one for our side. Once the hijackers had control of the aircraft they had "won". Getting their plane to designated targets was the aim but failing that everyone on board still dies.

We like to see the passenger revolt as a victory , and it is, but it is a small victory. At best a draw really, for that one flight. Imagine if all 4 flights had seen a passenger revolt or a shootdown before reaching their targets(with absolute concrete evidence of the intent to hit large occupied office structures). There would still have been a war in Afghanistan, it would not have been seen as a 'victory' and there would still be several hundred American civilians dead.

But I ramble and digress...........

[Reheat]

My comments were in no way intended to reflect upon Nasypany's emotional reaction to the trauma he might have had to face. He did the best job he could and is rightfully resentful and emotional toward detractors and the difficulties he had to face that day.

Those involved in these life/death situations learn how to deal with it or don't. Most do with the help of peers, through their spiritual beliefs, or simply just accept the reality that what has to be done is tolerable.

Heck, not only is a shoot down a no win endeavor, but any taking of human life is essentially a no win, as well. The only difference is in the numbers involved. People deal with it in a variety of ways, but it does bother most folks at various points in their life....

[jaydeehess]

I was not attempting to argue Reheat, just discuss. Sorry if it seemed so at any time.

[Reheat]

I was not attempting to argue Reheat, just discuss.

Me too. I think it's better when some of these stupid threads are obviously finished and we can all just have an educational type discussion. I enjoy that much more than dealing with the idiots. Press on.......