Military Was Set To Down Cessna

woodstock

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
9,342
Location
Out of a suitcase
Display Name

Display name:
iTravel
this was in the Post. the site has a photo of Mr. Scheaffer.

Military Was Set To Down Cessna
Authority Granted As Plane Strayed Deep Into Capital

By Spencer S. Hsu and John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 25, 2005; A01



Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave military officials the authority to shoot down, if necessary, a small plane that wandered into restricted airspace over the nation's capital May 11, according to two senior federal officials.

For 11 intense minutes, customs aircraft and military fighter jets tried to intercept the Cessna 150 and determine whether the pilots were confused and lost or were targeting Washington. Military officials never deemed the aircraft to be hostile, but White House and U.S. Capitol officials grew more concerned as it flew within three miles of the executive mansion.

The plane, one of the federal officials said, came within "15 to 20 seconds" of being downed before its pilots finally heeded repeated orders to turn away from the city.

The new details, also corroborated yesterday by a senior federal law enforcement official briefed on events, came as U.S. military and homeland security officials review the effectiveness of an air defense system established for the Washington area after the 2001 terrorist attacks. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because much of the air defense system is classified.

As authorities piece together the lessons of the scare -- described by some officials as the closest the government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington since Sept. 11, 2001 -- they are confronting sensitive issues involving split-second decisions, communications and the federal chain of command.

Against a light aircraft moving at a relatively slow 100 mph, with two evidently confused pilots, authorities were able to order the evacuation of the White House and Capitol complex only two to three minutes before the plane would have reached either. Outside analysts said it remains unknown what might happen against a larger, faster aircraft intending to evade defenders.

"The question is, if it were a faster plane . . . whether or not the system would have been as responsive," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Based on a Homeland Security Department chronology, it is unclear whether jet fighters would have been in position to take action against the Cessna before it reached the White House or Capitol. The Cessna penetrated a 16-mile-radius no-fly zone at 11:50 a.m.; F-16 fighters were scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base two minutes later.

The White House and Capitol were evacuated just after noon, as the plane continued to approach. The fighters fired warning flares at the Cessna at 12:04 p.m., and it was diverted.

Pentagon and Homeland Security officials have said the air defense system worked effectively during the crisis. But in a statement released Friday, the pilots said they had trouble communicating on the radio frequency that a customs helicopter crew signaled for them to use.

Officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection confirmed the communications problems cited by the Cessna pilots, Hayden "Jim" Sheaffer, 69, and Troy Martin, 36, both of Pennsylvania. The frequency was unavailable in that patch of airspace, the officials said.

Customs spokesman Gary Bracken said an unidentified plane on the ground had activated an emergency locator beacon that uses the same frequency, interfering with radio communications. Sheaffer eventually was able to communicate.

FAA officials have issued an emergency order revoking Sheaffer's pilot's license, saying he became lost soon after leaving a Pennsylvania airport, entered restricted airspace and showed "an utter disregard for or a complete lack of understanding of basic requirements for the safe operation of aircraft." Although Martin was at the Cessna's controls, the FAA held Sheaffer responsible because Martin is a student pilot.

Sheaffer's attorney, Mark McDermott, appealed the revocation yesterday and said Sheaffer would have left the restricted airspace sooner if the radio frequency were working. In an interview yesterday on NBC's "Today" show, Sheaffer said he thought the plane was going to be shot down after he saw the flares outside his window.

FAA officials said that Sheaffer "froze" during the incident, and Homeland Security officials said it remains unclear whether the flares, the radio or some other factor caused the plane to turn away.

Communications emerged as a problem again Monday, during another air incursion. A Canadian aircraft lost its radio because of a lightning strike and breached the no-fly zone. And a new backup system could not be used, North American Aerospace Defense Command officials said yesterday.

The new, ground-based system -- made operational Saturday -- is designed to flash red and green lasers at pilots who accidentally fly into restricted capital airspace as an alternative to radio warnings or signal flares. The system was not used Monday because the lasers cannot penetrate clouds in poor weather, said a NORAD spokeswoman, Air Force 1st Lt. Lisa Citino.

The Canadian aircraft was escorted by F-16 fighters to Gaithersburg airport.

Yesterday, a U.S. Homeland Security official confirmed an Associated Press account that discussions are underway about transferring the duties of the customs aircraft to the U.S. Coast Guard. Airborne customs agents, as law enforcement officers, have discretion to use lethal force against pilots if lives are threatened. For the military to down a civilian aircraft, the order must come through a strict chain of command. The Coast Guard can follow rules of engagement similar to the military, officials said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was concerned about the dual authorities -- military and customs -- that were highlighted by the Cessna incident.

Taken together, federal officials said, the close call on shooting down the aircraft, the radio breakdown and complex command issues underscore limitations of the air defense system. The system, they said, gives government leaders very little time to make life-or-death decisions.

Restricted-flight zones around the capital cannot be pushed outward without disrupting more general aviation airports and major commercial airliner routes.

Yesterday, Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for Chertoff, reiterated that officials believe the security measures May 11 were effective. "We will continue to review all incidents of this nature to determine areas where we can strengthen these measures," he said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz, said the military would not discuss specific rules of engagement or individuals with shoot-down authority, some of which is generally classified. He added that 40,000 combat air patrols and 2,000 scrambles or intercepts have been flown in support of domestic air security since Sept. 11, 2001.

"The authority to authorize a shoot down of a civilian aircraft is delegated to a very, very small number of senior civilian and military officials," Swiergosz said. "It is well rehearsed. There is nothing ad hoc about it. . . . At the end of the day, we are going to safeguard the capital, and they are not going to get to their target."

A Defense Department official said military commanders had determined that the Cessna was not a threat before fighter pilots fired the warning flares.

"You can look at the tail number, look up where they're coming from, who's on board, see what they're doing, you can make some pretty reasonable assumptions and say what this is, versus what it is not," the Defense official said. "Does that indicate to a terrorist, 'All you have to do is hijack a Cessna, pose as an instructor and they're going to give me right of way?' No."

Staff writers Petula Dvorak, Sara Kehaulani Goo, Sari Horwitz and Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.
 
"You can look at the tail number, look up where they're coming from, who's on board, see what they're doing, you can make some pretty reasonable assumptions and say what this is, versus what it is not," the Defense official said. "Does that indicate to a terrorist, 'All you have to do is hijack a Cessna, pose as an instructor and they're going to give me right of way?' No."
ASSUME first,
then deny the possibility of the obvious.
Sounds like the guvmint to me.
 
My read on this is that it is damage control. It is in response to the question, "how did such a slow moving small plane get so close to the Capitol?"

That the Cessna wasn't shot down can be taken two ways: 1, the system does not work; 2, the system does work but we exercised extreme discretion and everyone should be thankful we are so on top of our game . This latest information fits nicely with the latter.

But the question persists: "If the system does work and the system does call for prevention by any means of an overflight of the Capitol why was this allowed to progress so far that an overflight actually occurred?" The response is simple, we will not be so discrete next time.

It's backroom stuff designed solely to minimize the damage to someone's govt career.
 
I don't believe either source. At this point, the papers are just milking the story to fill in space. They are just making stuff up, period.

I just don't believe most of what is printed or reported on the news anymore. It has gotten worse than Pravda. There is no more journalism in the USA.
 
larrysb said:
I don't believe either source. At this point, the papers are just milking the story to fill in space. They are just making stuff up, period.

I just don't believe most of what is printed or reported on the news anymore. It has gotten worse than Pravda. There is no more journalism in the USA.

CNN had a talking head read the Pentagon's press release strongly denying that Rumsfeld gave a shoot down order.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
CNN had a talking head read the Pentagon's press release strongly denying that Rumsfeld gave a shoot down order.

-Skip

Well, if they aren't going to give the order to shoot something down once it has gotten to within 90 seconds of the most sensitive piece of real estate in the country....when exactly WILL they give the order ? :eek:

A lot of politics, not a lot of results.:rolleyes:

I love the whole "lasers wont work in bad weather" report - how much did it cost us to work THAT one out ? :goofy:
 
Richard said:
My read on this is that it is damage control. It is in response to the question, "how did such a slow moving small plane get so close to the Capitol?"

That the Cessna wasn't shot down can be taken two ways: 1, the system does not work; 2, the system does work but we exercised extreme discretion and everyone should be thankful we are so on top of our game . This latest information fits nicely with the latter.

But the question persists: "If the system does work and the system does call for prevention by any means of an overflight of the Capitol why was this allowed to progress so far that an overflight actually occurred?" The response is simple, we will not be so discrete next time.

It's backroom stuff designed solely to minimize the damage to someone's govt career.

Reminds ya kinda of the German kid who landed the 172 in Red Square.
 
SJP said:
Well, if they aren't going to give the order to shoot something down once it has gotten to within 90 seconds of the most sensitive piece of real estate in the country....when exactly WILL they give the order ? :eek:

A lot of politics, not a lot of results.:rolleyes:

I love the whole "lasers wont work in bad weather" report - how much did it cost us to work THAT one out ? :goofy:


way off topic:

qwest was testing out a laser beam to be used for communications (don't know all the details). it was from rooftop to rooftop - really close proximity. worked ok but they noticed it was out every day from something like 3-6 or something funky. come to find out the cleaning guy used it as a coat tree. haha!
 
SJP said:
Well, if they aren't going to give the order to shoot something down once it has gotten to within 90 seconds of the most sensitive piece of real estate in the country....when exactly WILL they give the order ?

Contrary to popular public belief, shootdown isn't magic poof it doesn't exist anymore.
What happens to the wreckage after the hit?
What happens to the missile if it misses?
What happens to the bullets including the ones that go clean through the plane?
What happens if you do successfully take the plane out and it falls into a school yard during recess?

For some reason I get the distinct impression that if someone did manage to successfully ram a 150 into the windows of the whitehouse or such, it probably wouldn't even scratch the window. I'd bet good money they didn't get their window glass from your local Home Depot window department.
 
fgcason said:
Contrary to popular public belief, shootdown isn't magic poof it doesn't exist anymore.
What happens to the wreckage after the hit?
What happens to the missile if it misses?
What happens to the bullets including the ones that go clean through the plane?
What happens if you do successfully take the plane out and it falls into a school yard during recess?

For some reason I get the distinct impression that if someone did manage to successfully ram a 150 into the windows of the whitehouse or such, it probably wouldn't even scratch the window. I'd bet good money they didn't get their window glass from your local Home Depot window department.

So switch the scenario from the C150 to something bigger, or to the recently well proven jet airliner as the hardware for malicious destruction. Then how would you answer your own questions listed above ?
 
Henning said:
Reminds ya kinda of the German kid who landed the 172 in Red Square.

Refresh my memory. I remember the event but don't recall the the specifics in the aftermath.

Trivia: MSFlightSim98 allowed the user to recreate that historic flight.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
So switch the scenario from the C150 to something bigger, or to the recently well proven jet airliner as the hardware for malicious destruction. Then how would you answer your own questions listed above ?

That is a very good point. So, if you will, is Lance in his Baron perceived as a larger threat than Joe in his Tiger/Skyhawk?

I could think of multiple scenarios involving the size of the a/c or the number of the a/c (ex: formation flight heading to airshow) involved and while they seem rational they all become ridiculous when subjected to the ludicrous notion of a shootdown policy.

The problem is not in the sky, the problem is the silly ass elected critters. Is this a call to arms?
 
Richard said:
Refresh my memory. I remember the event but don't recall the the specifics in the aftermath.

Trivia: MSFlightSim98 allowed the user to recreate that historic flight.

Russian Prison IIRC
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
So switch the scenario from the C150 to something bigger, or to the recently well proven jet airliner as the hardware for malicious destruction. Then how would you answer your own questions listed above ?

It still doesn't make a shootdown magic. Just makes a bigger mess when it hits the ground where ever it comes down.

I'm telling ya, if they do eventually go with the shootdown option especially if it's shoot first ask questions later behavior, some innocent person making a navigation blunder is most absolutely certainly going to get executed. Sure you might get a terrorist one of these days eventually (assuming they don't go with the innocently stopped SUV or semi truck option that levels a city block vs scratching a building and messing up the grass with some aluminum) but you're going to kill a lot of innocent citizens before you get to the one bad guy. And that's the real point here. How many citizens are you willing to execute in order to maybe get one terrorist?

This reeks of a "feel good we're doing something" political tactic with deadly consequences and in the meantime doing absolute SQUAT for installing something similar on the ground.

I don't have all the answers and most likely overlooking stuff but anyone who supports this system will find me voting for their opposition come next election. This is a showstopper in my book.
 
I wonder if it would be feasable for someone (a GA friend, hopefully) to build a life size building, and a lifesize RC model of a 150 or something, stuff it full of bombs, and video tape the damage it would do to the building.

It would do wonders, I'd think, to getting the gov't to calm the heck down.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I wonder if it would be feasable for someone (a GA friend, hopefully) to build a life size building, and a lifesize RC model of a 150 or something, stuff it full of bombs, and video tape the damage it would do to the building.

It would do wonders, I'd think, to getting the gov't to calm the heck down.

Don't need to Nick.
Just look at any footage on TV of the damage done to anything by a 500 pound bomb or larger. The delivery mechanism makes little difference really.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I wonder if it would be feasable for someone (a GA friend, hopefully) to build a life size building, and a lifesize RC model of a 150 or something, stuff it full of bombs, and video tape the damage it would do to the building.

It would do wonders, I'd think, to getting the gov't to calm the heck down.

Round up $250,000, I'll set it up, we'll blow something up real good. Might even be able to sell tickets to recoupe some costs.:cheerswine:
 
Henning said:
Round up $250,000, I'll set it up, we'll blow something up real good. Might even be able to sell tickets to recoupe some costs.:cheerswine:

Butt out, Henning. This is my gig, Nick just send me $50K as 10% deposit and I'll set it up for early fall. No media but we'll have video feed at 40 different locations. We'll make a bundle on licensing agreements.
 
Richard said:
That is a very good point. So, if you will, is Lance in his Baron perceived as a larger threat than Joe in his Tiger/Skyhawk?

Perhaps. A Baron could certainly carry a thousand pound bomb whereas a Skyhawk might not get off the ground with that kind of load. But there is a flip side to this. Getting to and hitting a target on the ground while detonating the bomb in an effective manner would require much greater skills than flying an airliner into a tall building IMO. And it would be difficult to practice, I would think. Also while a 1000 lb military bomb can do a lot of physical damage, I don't think that something a terrorist could come up with for an airborne attack in a light plane would be anywhere near as catestrophic as the 9/11 attacks.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
So switch the scenario from the C150 to something bigger, or to the recently well proven jet airliner as the hardware for malicious destruction. Then how would you answer your own questions listed above ?

It would make a bigger mess.
 
fgcason said:
It still doesn't make a shootdown magic. Just makes a bigger mess when it hits the ground where ever it comes down.

I'm telling ya, if they do eventually go with the shootdown option especially if it's shoot first ask questions later behavior, some innocent person making a navigation blunder is most absolutely certainly going to get executed. How many citizens are you willing to execute in order to maybe get one terrorist?

This reeks of a "feel good we're doing something" political tactic with deadly consequences and in the meantime doing absolute SQUAT for installing something similar on the ground.


I'll tell ya what I tell my girlfriend all the time "Look on the positive side". There is the fact that an aviator who can't manage basic aviation to base standards is no longer threatening my airspace. I no way do I back shooting down people, but if someones gotta get shot, better them than me.
 
It wouldnt be very difficult for a bad guy to get his hands on an artillery shell of decent size, rig it as a suicide mechanism and detonate just before impact. A 172 would do just fine and the damage would be pretty substantial. Most of the ied's used in iraq are made from old artillery shells.

I'm not sure how effective it would be in spreading a chemical contatminate like hydrazine, but I imagine that even if it didnt kill anyone it would be an embarrasment. The military's big on "it would embarass the U.S. Military" as if that were a terrorist priority.
 
Richard said:
That is a very good point. So, if you will, is Lance in his Baron perceived as a larger threat than Joe in his Tiger/Skyhawk?

The one with the greater intelligence applied to malicious intent would be the greater threat, regardless of mechanism of weapon used.
 
Henning said:
I no way do I back shooting down people, but if someones gotta get shot, better them than me.

I think downing small GA aircraft is absurd for any reason, and once on the slippery slope it is very difficult to stop the plunge. The military obtains civilian nuking authority one day, the next day you are out patrolling pipeline when a VP unexpectedly goes Sunday morning duck hunting under your flight path. You obtained your proper briefing and departed for a 5 hour flight, but after departure the FAA/TSA/SS throws up a VIP TFR. Shortly later you punch the boundary of the newly erected VIP TFR and the F16's punch the missile launch on you.

When it comes to this particular issue the government is just flat too incompetent to be allowed execution options. Bad idea. Very bad idea.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Richard said:
That is a very good point. So, if you will, is Lance in his Baron perceived as a larger threat than Joe in his Tiger/Skyhawk?

The one with the greater intelligence applied to malicious intent would be the greater threat, regardless of mechanism of weapon used.

Hey Dave, was that a compliment?
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I think downing small GA aircraft is absurd for any reason,
It's all situations. I can conceive of some circumstances where downing a small GA aircraft would be appropriate. I must admit that they would be very far-fetched, but on Sept 10, 2001, nobody thought anyone would crash a 767 into the World Trade Center.

The military obtains civilian nuking authority one day,...
It doesn't work like that. Shoot-down authority is obtained only in real time from the NCA based on what's happening right then and there, not conditionally in advance and handed to line fighter crews on their own responsibility. That's the ROE, and short of open warfare, I cannot imagine that changing.
 
fgcason said:
It still doesn't make a shootdown magic. Just makes a bigger mess when it hits the ground where ever it comes down.

I'm telling ya, if they do eventually go with the shootdown option especially if it's shoot first ask questions later behavior, some innocent person making a navigation blunder is most absolutely certainly going to get executed. Sure you might get a terrorist one of these days eventually (assuming they don't go with the innocently stopped SUV or semi truck option that levels a city block vs scratching a building and messing up the grass with some aluminum) but you're going to kill a lot of innocent citizens before you get to the one bad guy. And that's the real point here. How many citizens are you willing to execute in order to maybe get one terrorist?

This reeks of a "feel good we're doing something" political tactic with deadly consequences and in the meantime doing absolute SQUAT for installing something similar on the ground.

I don't have all the answers and most likely overlooking stuff but anyone who supports this system will find me voting for their opposition come next election. This is a showstopper in my book.

Defense is messy business and no-win really, nobody here has said it was magic.

Ideally, it's nice to meet the bad guy at noon on main street, let him draw first & then outdraw him, but that doesn't happen. It's actually usually easier to take the first hit losses and retaliate afterwards if possible, for what it would be worth.
 
OK, you're the SecDef.

Scenario 1: It's 8:15 am on 9/11/01. You're told that four airliners have been hijacked, no comm with any, and they're headed for NYC and DC. Fortunately, and unlike what really happened, several NJ and DC ANG fighters carrying live warshot ordnance were out for live missile shoots in the W-areas, have been vectored to intercept, and are hooked up with the airliners in standard protocol -- one along side, the other in the heart of the missile-shoot envelope. None of the airliners are responding. The President is out of position, and you're holding the National Command Authority for anything short of release of nuclear weapons. Remember, you don't know what we know now. Do you order a shoot-down?

Scenario 1a: Now it's 9:15 am. The first plane has hit the WTC. Do you order the fighters to splash the other three, which are all now over congested areas?

Having command authority can really [deleted verb] the big [deleted noun] sometimes. What order do you give?

Scenario 2: It's June 1, 2005. You have credible intelligence that Al Qaida has obtained a a nuclear weapon stolen from an ex-Soviet arsenal and intends to deliver it by air to DC. A Cessna 150, having departed a small GA airport in southern PA, is proceeding without comm or transponder into the ADIZ, heading directly for the middle of DC. It does not respond to any comm or intercept protocols. It's now inside the FRZ and an F-16 with AAM's is on its six. You have no idea who's flying it or if it was stolen, and there's not enough time to send the FBI to that airport to find out before it's over the heart of DC. You're told that the kill mechanisms of an AAM will damage the weapon enough to prevent a nuclear yield if it is hit before it is activated, but a lot of people will be killed on the ground if the aircraft is splashed. What order do you give?

Scenario 2a: Same as Scenario 2, but instead of a nuke, your intel says it's large stock of anthrax powder. Again, you have no solid information as to whether this plane is stolen or just lost. Your weapons experts tell you that shooting a plane carrying this stuff will effectively release it all over the BaltoWash area and kill tens of thousands, just as it would if terrorists released the material. What order do you give?

Scenario 3: No unusual intelligence info, just standard "Code Yellow" situation. A Cessna 150, having departed a small GA airport in southern PA, is proceeding without comm or transponder into the ADIZ, heading directly for the middle of DC. It does not respond to any comm or intercept protocols. It's now inside the FRZ and an F-16 with AAM's is on its six. You have no idea who's flying it or if it was stolen, and there's not enough time to send the FBI to that airport to find out before it's over the heart of DC. It isn't turning, but a lot of people will be killed on the ground if the aircraft is splashed. What order do you give?

While I'd have no problem as the Viper Driver following whatever order was given in any of the above situations, I most certainly would not want to have to make the decision. Phil Boyer ain't the only one not getting paid enough for what he has to do.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
snip
While I'd have no problem as the Viper Driver following whatever order was given in any of the above situations, I most certainly would not want to have to make the decision. Phil Boyer ain't the only one not getting paid enough for what he has to do.

And I stand by my contention that any American fighter pilot who follows such an order, and is found to have executed innocent Americans, is no different than Osama bin Laden, aside from the fact that bin Laden is an enemy, but isn't a traitor. That fighter pilot would be a murderer, and will have betrayed his oath and our Constitution. Fighter pilots are trained killers who think they outrank God, but they do not have that leeway. We do not summarily execute people for violating administrative rules. If the threat is that severe, it is time to ground civilian aviation for the duration.
 
SJP said:
Well, if they aren't going to give the order to shoot something down once it has gotten to within 90 seconds of the most sensitive piece of real estate in the country....when exactly WILL they give the order ? :eek:

A lot of politics, not a lot of results.:rolleyes:

I love the whole "lasers wont work in bad weather" report - how much did it cost us to work THAT one out ? :goofy:

Makes me think of the millions that NASA supposedly spent to come up with a pen that would write in zero gravity. I'm told the Russians used a pencil. :)

Jeannie
 
Scenario 1. :

Wait & see.
Don't want to be impulsive.

1a.

Smoke them now.
If we NEVER negotiated with hijackers, there would be much less of it.
(this action is not much different that what the pilots of the airliner that likely rolled into the ground did -THE BEST HEROS OF THE WHOLE 9/11 event)
Accept future benefits of swift, decisive action over our own ground losses.

2.

Smoke them now.
The intelligence is credible and ground losses will be zero or low (it's just pieces of a C150 falling) compared with high activated nuke losses.

2a.

Smoke them now.
Intelligence is credible and the anthrax cloud released by the strike will inflict high USA ground losses, but not quite as high as the metered application planned by the terrorists.

3.

Smoke them now.
It's post 9/11 right ? They're not responding, either because they're bad people as in the above scenarios, or they have screwed up and it is not morally worth the risk to other USA citizens not visibly screwing up bad below at this time to wait and see what happens, no matter whether pilots are USA citizens or not. C150 debris fallout would be minimal.

Very high costs are involved with all possible descisions, including that of taking no action.




Ron Levy said:
OK, you're the SecDef.

Scenario 1: It's 8:15 am on 9/11/01. You're told that four airliners have been hijacked, no comm with any, and they're headed for NYC and DC. Fortunately, and unlike what really happened, several NJ and DC ANG fighters carrying live warshot ordnance were out for live missile shoots in the W-areas, have been vectored to intercept, and are hooked up with the airliners in standard protocol -- one along side, the other in the heart of the missile-shoot envelope. None of the airliners are responding. The President is out of position, and you're holding the National Command Authority for anything short of release of nuclear weapons. Remember, you don't know what we know now. Do you order a shoot-down?

Scenario 1a: Now it's 9:15 am. The first plane has hit the WTC. Do you order the fighters to splash the other three, which are all now over congested areas?

Having command authority can really [deleted verb] the big [deleted noun] sometimes. What order do you give?

Scenario 2: It's June 1, 2005. You have credible intelligence that Al Qaida has obtained a a nuclear weapon stolen from an ex-Soviet arsenal and intends to deliver it by air to DC. A Cessna 150, having departed a small GA airport in southern PA, is proceeding without comm or transponder into the ADIZ, heading directly for the middle of DC. It does not respond to any comm or intercept protocols. It's now inside the FRZ and an F-16 with AAM's is on its six. You have no idea who's flying it or if it was stolen, and there's not enough time to send the FBI to that airport to find out before it's over the heart of DC. You're told that the kill mechanisms of an AAM will damage the weapon enough to prevent a nuclear yield if it is hit before it is activated, but a lot of people will be killed on the ground if the aircraft is splashed. What order do you give?

Scenario 2a: Same as Scenario 2, but instead of a nuke, your intel says it's large stock of anthrax powder. Again, you have no solid information as to whether this plane is stolen or just lost. Your weapons experts tell you that shooting a plane carrying this stuff will effectively release it all over the BaltoWash area and kill tens of thousands, just as it would if terrorists released the material. What order do you give?

Scenario 3: No unusual intelligence info, just standard "Code Yellow" situation. A Cessna 150, having departed a small GA airport in southern PA, is proceeding without comm or transponder into the ADIZ, heading directly for the middle of DC. It does not respond to any comm or intercept protocols. It's now inside the FRZ and an F-16 with AAM's is on its six. You have no idea who's flying it or if it was stolen, and there's not enough time to send the FBI to that airport to find out before it's over the heart of DC. It isn't turning, but a lot of people will be killed on the ground if the aircraft is splashed. What order do you give?

While I'd have no problem as the Viper Driver following whatever order was given in any of the above situations, I most certainly would not want to have to make the decision. Phil Boyer ain't the only one not getting paid enough for what he has to do.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Scenario 1. :

snip
Smoke them now.
It's post 9/11 right ? They're not responding, either because they're bad people as in the above scenarios, or they have screwed up and it is not morally worth the risk to other USA citizens not visibly screwing up bad below at this time to wait and see what happens, no matter whether pilots are USA citizens or not. C150 debris fallout would be minimal.

Very high costs are involved with all possible descisions, including that of taking no action.

I do not believe that anyone who advocates slaughtering American men, women, and children on a whim, for merely violating an administrative rule, should use the term "morally" while advocating such murder. It just doesn't fit.
 
NickDBrennan said:
I wonder if it would be feasable for someone (a GA friend, hopefully) to build a life size building, and a lifesize RC model of a 150 or something, stuff it full of bombs, and video tape the damage it would do to the building.

It would do wonders, I'd think, to getting the gov't to calm the heck down.

Change the target to a nuke power plant. There was a test using a F-4 drone that was flown into a structure the thickness of the power plant as a test. The F-4 impact was at 500 kts. All it did was nock s chunk out of the cement. How many times have we been briefed not to hang around damn or nuke power plants. Again I say call your Senator and give them a ear full.
 
Joe Williams said:
I do not believe that anyone who advocates slaughtering American men, women, and children on a whim, for merely violating an administrative rule, should use the term "morally" while advocating such murder. It just doesn't fit.

You've got that right, Joe. That poor word seems to be getting way to much use lately, for all the wrong reasons.

I assume those who advocate "smoke them now" never make even the simplest navigation mistake. The fact we're talking about it, much less doing it, means the bad guys really did win. Sad.

When this freedom goes away, which one do you think will be next?
 
Maverick said:
Makes me think of the millions that NASA supposedly spent to come up with a pen that would write in zero gravity. I'm told the Russians used a pencil. :)

Jeannie

LOL Jeannie. I never heard of that one, but looks like the Russians used a lot more common since to me on that one.

Larry
 
Joe Williams said:
I do not believe that anyone who advocates slaughtering American men, women, and children on a whim, for merely violating an administrative rule, should use the term "morally" while advocating such murder. It just doesn't fit.

If we KNEW they were USA and no threat then I would agree with you.

But in the scenario, we DON'T know that and it certainly is morally wrong to knowingly gamble with the welfare of many, merely to speculate on the intentions of and protect a few, who are most certainly either USAs but not up to snuff or have malicious intent.

Either way, we don't need to go out of our way for them at all.
 
Joe Williams said:
I do not believe that anyone who advocates slaughtering American men, women, and children on a whim, for merely violating an administrative rule,
I think I see the problem. There's a clear misunderstanding here about the nature of the ADIZ. This is a national security measure, not an administrative rule like PPR for parking at the FBO when NASCAR's in town. If y'all don't understand the difference, then we have an unspannable gulf between us.

Now, I'm not trying to justify the Washington ADIZ, or say that I agree with its conception or implementation. But I am saying that from a regulatory perspective, it is in the same category as the double fences around nuclear weapons storage sites, not a "no stopping" area on a busy street, and we have to realize that. The alternative is turning the ADIZ into a real no-fly zone like the P-areas were before 9/11, and that's something none of us want.

And, for the record, the Marines did on a couple of occasions have civilian aircraft in the sights of their Stinger missiles at Camp David. Fortunately, those aircraft did not actually reach the point where they were inevitably going to overfly the Presidential compound, or they would have been splashed. However, I didn't hear of anyone crying "court-martial" for the troops who shouldered those weapons, nor do I think anyone would have even if they had launched.

Get it straight, folks -- we are at WAR, and this is a WARTIME security measure. Treat it any other way, and someone's going to get killed, and that killing, though possibly regrettable, will be justified, both legally and morally. In this day where the battlefield is no longer clearly delineated, and enemy combatants are nearly indistinguishable from friendly civilians until they actually start shooting, the answers aren't easy.

In any event, troops in the field do NOT get to make the choices that Joe's statements suggest. Refusing to fire on the designated enemy in a combat situation is among the most serious breaches of discipline the military knows. In this case, pilots do not get to substitute their own judgement of whether an aircraft is "hostile" for that of the national command authorities. Absent demonstrable assurance that the target is in fact non-hostile, the law of this land will send the pilot who refuses such an order to fire to the US Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS for the rest of his/her military career. That's the law, no matter what Joe thinks the law should be.
 
Back
Top