Military Was Set To Down Cessna

[Terry Miller]

Scenario 1 and 3 are tough. 1 is tough because I do know what I know now, and it's hard not to know. Also, the condition of air defense at the time was completely different, and it's hard to get back into that mindset.

3 is tough because there are a few more variables that could be known but not given here. If it remains an 'all things equal' situation.....take the shot.

1a, 2, 2a,........all shoots.

Weigh the immediate and long term consequences of your action and go with the decision that yields the best result. Remember in all cases that this is not a mistake made or a situation created by the responding teams. Maybe this is a mistake on the part of the intruder, maybe not. Your defense is being tested nevertheless.

If you would not fire in any of these scenarios, you're probably not going to fire at all. If you're not going to fire under any circumstances your defense does not exist.

The situation that exist in our airspace in this time of war is clear. Whether you agree with the TFR's, ADIZ., the war itself, or the choice made on American Idol, the standing condition is clear. If/then's should be spelled out and carried out.

Once a bogey goes bandit and has penetrated your defense zone, you're not looking for reasons to shoot anymore. You're looking for reasons not to. We can all be glad that so far no one has been shot down in violation, but if you think this out completely, it's not something to be 100% comfortable with.

An unwillingness to fire only encourages attack. If anthrax will kill as many whether you fire the shot or not, fire the shot. If you have the choice of splashing the bandit over a congested area or him splashing himself into our national and military command, you have to take the civilian casualties and protect the area you are assigned to protect. Maintain the initiative at all times, keep the enemy guessing about your capabilities, and crystal clear as to your willingness to engage.

Assigning murder to the act of firing on an unresponsive aircraft in the ADIZ is the equivilent of charging a combat engineer with murder when a sufficiently warned someone violates and ruins a clearly marked mine field.

The only treason I see here is sending our under paid, under appreciated, finest few to die on foriegn soil while not having the stomach to make the hard decisions here at home comfy in our own beds.

 

[poadeleted3]

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.

The facts, Ron, is that they HAVE chosen to set that ADIZ up just like they do any other administrative proceeding. It is NOT even a criminal law that people are so blithely advocating butchering our citizens for. Calling it "national security" does NOTHING to disguise the fact that what some are calling for is shooting down and murdering American citizens for violating a RULE! Not law, not anything else.. it's an administrative rule, and we are talking about summary execution for violating it. You are correct, we have an unspannable gulf if that is in any way acceptable to you.

I, for one DO prefer a no fly zone and grounding civil aviation to the alternative of butchering our citizens simply because we have become a nation of cowards. If we are truly at war, we should act like it, and shut down unnecessary threats like civil aviation. You may not want the ADIZ to be an absolute no fly zone, but I do. Shutting it down is far preferable to allowing us to pursue a hobby or even a livelihood, when so many are calling for the blood of innocents. Shutting down GA is far preferable to the concept of executing an American family because so many here in the so-called land of the brave wet themselves at the thought of an airplane. This is not Nazi Germany, this is not Saddam's Iraq. That is not how we do business. The killing of Americans over DC or any part of this nation will be utterly immoral in every since of the word.

As for Leavenworth, think back to the fallout after Ruby Ridge and Waco. The FBI sniper who murdered Vicki Weaver is not safe to this day. Lon Horuchi and his family will forever have to be looking over their shoulders. And the Weavers were despicable people. What do you think will happen to a fighter pilot who regards downing a lost C172 with an ordinary, upstanding family as a "combat situation?" Nothing that shouldn't happen. I will hope and pray for justice to befall the murderer.

I am going to take a break from this site. I cannot in good conscience associate myself with people who advocate slaughtering American citizens in the name of illusory safety. It is a betrayal of everything this nation used to be, and is still supposed to be. This is Memorial Day weekend. I remember several lost friends, and a fiance dead in the line of duty this weekend. None of them died to protect a nation that would murder it's own out of fear and cowardice. Ya'll flat out need to grow some balls, and learn to accept the risks that come with freedom.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Most U.S. Citizens have not had to serve in the military. Of those that have, most have not had to serve under combat conditions in a leadership role. I had many stimulating debates with the men in my infantry unit in the rear area. What we were doing in the war; why we were there; how inequitable the draft was.

When we went into the field on combat operations, our lives depended on one another. We had to work as a team. When I directed someone to do something; they did it. Period. They could challenge the decision afterward if they wished, but we didn't conduct academic debates during combat operations.

Ron has seized on the essence of this zone. People keep playing around and acting like it's no big deal. Our military is being placed in a very difficult position and we keep saying aww shucks, no big deal.

It is a big deal. Those young men in fighters would rather not be there. Why the *&^%% don't people get it and just stay clear? If the military doesn't shoot and it's a terrorist; the civil populace will holler--why didn't they shoot? There will be a big congressional investigation and everyone will point to someone else. If the military shoots and it's not a terrorist--the second guessers will say they shouldn't have shot.

The men and women in those planes are patriots protecting our nation; they need every pilot's help--stay the heck out of there unless you're on an IFR flight plan or meet the VFR conditions to be there. It's not a game!! Deal with it. Make it go away, or comply. Don't leave it there and not comply. If you like Russian Roulette, be the next unauthorized aircraft to venture in there and fly right toward the White House.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

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?

Your assumption is incorrect and presumptuous.
If I make a mistake, I ACCEPT the consequences, the way it should be.
There are many things worse than death.

 

[poadeleted20]

Scenario 1 and 3 are tough.

Darn tootin' they are -- and they are good examples of what choices are faced by the folks in command these days. I do not envy their jobs.

1 is tough because I do know what I know now, and it's hard not to know. Also, the condition of air defense at the time was completely different, and it's hard to get back into that mindset.

But given all that, think about the question those folks must be living with: Could we have done more? Could we have prevented it? What would have been the outcomes of the preventive measures in the absence of public acceptence of their necessity?

3 is tough because there are a few more variables that could be known but not given here.

Welcome to combat -- you don't always have all the information in time to use it before you have to make the decision. Scenario 3 is basically what the NCA was presented with by the Smoketown Bandits.

If it remains an 'all things equal' situation.....take the shot.

And had you done that on May 11, you would have been wrong. It came down to about 15 seconds from having to order a shoot-down, and the NCA were saved from that disaster by the passenger's actions to take control and turn the plane.

1a, 2, 2a,........all shoots.

Are you prepared for the consequences if you're wrong about 2 and 2a? Especially given the apparent failures of the intelligence community to provide accurate analysis of enemy capabilities, intentions, and operations leading to 9/11? I'm not saying it's possible to do so, but in making the decision, one has to consider how likely it is that the intelligence is wrong, and if so, what the consequences of the "incorrect" decision to shoot will be.

Weigh the immediate and long term consequences of your action and go with the decision that yields the best result. Remember in all cases that this is not a mistake made or a situation created by the responding teams. Maybe this is a mistake on the part of the intruder, maybe not. Your defense is being tested nevertheless.

Which leads us to the question of whether Al Qaida is using the publicly available info from these various nicks and incursions to plan a future attack -- say, if we are lulled into insensitivity to such incursions by folks like the Smoketown Bandits, much as the actions of the various hijackers for monetary and political gains paved the way for the 9/11 hijackings to be treated non-threatening until the first plane hit the WTC.

The situation that exist in our airspace in this time of war is clear. Whether you agree with the TFR's, ADIZ., the war itself, or the choice made on American Idol, the standing condition is clear. If/then's should be spelled out and carried out.

About mid-morning on 9/11, an Iranian-born professor at my school asked me what I thought would happen as a result of the events of the day. "We're going to war," I said, "like after Pearl Harbor." His look of stunned surprise indicated that such a response had not even entered his mind. I continued, "We're going to find out who did this, and we're going to kill them and everyone who provided support for it, and attack any country that helped them." "This is a very bad day for all of us, Ron," he said. And he was right.

 

[Henning]

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.

Yep, and the US wouldn't be the first country to do it either. BTW, they've been intecepting planes with fighters within the US for awhile. There has always been the offshore ADIZ to deal with, and many planes have been splashed transgressing it. Granted those planes would typically make the mistake of shooting at the surveilling aircraft, otherwise they typically get followed to termination. But it is getting worse. Either they dissmantle that system they have, or it will happen there as well.

 

[Frank Browne]

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

A Berliner, I think his name was Mathias Rust, flew a Cessna 150 to Moscow and landed in Red Square. He was detained for some time. I don't know how long. I do believe he outlived several Soviet generals whose responsibility it was to protect the USSR.

 

[Terry Miller]

> I do not envy their jobs.

Neither do I. Like you, I understand how difficult the job is, admire their willingness to do it, and am not going to sit in my armchair second guessing them.

> Could we have done more? Could we have prevented it?

Who can know? If there's something to be learned, learn it and take it with you as you move on. If not, don't get distracted wishing things were diffeerent or lost in thought about things you can't know.

> What would have been the outcomes of the preventive measures in the absence of public acceptence of their necessity?

I'll let the politicians worry about that one. If left to public acceptence, we are lost. If the military starts making decisions based on that we are lost as well.

> Welcome to combat -- you don't always have all the information in time to use it before you have to make the decision.

Then it's, 'This is what we know, these are our options, these are our orders, and this is what we're compelled to do.'

>...you would have been wrong. It came down to about 15 seconds from having to order a shoot-down, and the NCA were saved from that disaster by the passenger's actions to take control and turn the plane.

Can you make that assessment? If they take the plane 15 seconds from shoot, the situation has changed. So, the decision is corrected. The decision was not 'wrong' at the time, it would have become wrong if it was not adapted to the change in circumstance.

> Are you prepared for the consequences if you're wrong about 2 and 2a?

Welcome to the world of nightmares. There are always consequences, right or wrong. Indecision is worse than a bad decision. You are in the life and death decision business. It's a heavy load, it will change you and haunt you. Carry it.


> ...but in making the decision, one has to consider how likely it is that the intelligence is wrong, and if so, what the consequences of the "incorrect" decision to shoot will be.

This is something I think you have to deal with before you are in the position to make the decision. I would have to ask myself, 'Will I distrust the intel to the point that I will not act on it?' If the answer is yes, I have to seriously consider sitting this one out. Resign my command to someone who will act with the knowledge they have at the time.

I can't play the infield praying that no one ever hits a ball to me. I am either fit for the task or not. Fit meaning that I will know what to do with what I have when it's time to do it. If I can't trust the intel, I can't be in command. The time of decision concerning the intel is not when it's time to decide to take the shot.

> Which leads us to the question of whether Al Qaida is using the publicly available info from these various nicks and incursions to plan a future attack...

You simply have to assume they are. They would be fools if they're not, and they're not fools.

> "We're going to war,"

That was pretty much my response. I was contacted on the day by two brothers who are friends in Bosnia. They are native to the area and had been dealing with their own problems over there. They made contact to extend their sorrows for the act of terror. I corrected them that this was an act of war. I told them to buckle in, I think they've started a war that may never end.

 

[poadeleted20]

A Berliner, I think his name was Mathias Rust, flew a Cessna 150 to Moscow and landed in Red Square. He was detained for some time. I don't know how long. I do believe he outlived several Soviet generals whose responsibility it was to protect the USSR.

It was a C-172, it was in 1987, and he went to a Soviet prison for 432 days out of a 5-year sentence before being released back to Germany where he now lives in relative obscurity (minus his pilot certificate, which the German FAA yanked at once).

The only reason he was NOT splashed was that four years before the Soviets shot down a Korean Air Lines 747 that strayed far off course well into Soviet airspace, failed to respond to any attempts at communication, and went right over a highly sensitive military installation on Sakhalin Island. The Soviets still claim they thought it was a US RC-135 reconnaisance aircraft collecting intelligence on that base in violation of all understandings between the US and the USSR on the conduct of such flights.

The nasty international political consequences of the shootdown of a civilian airliner which constituted no apparent direct threat (other than the loss of some secrets) made the Soviets hesitant to repeat that event, especially since they knew it was a C-172 with no intelligence-gathering capability and they knew their only known enemies (us) wouldn't use such a plane as a first-strike weapon as long as we had Pershing II missiles available.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, and the US wouldn't be the first country to do it either. BTW, they've been intecepting planes with fighters within the US for awhile. There has always been the offshore ADIZ to deal with, and many planes have been splashed transgressing it.

There was one case in 1983 of a doctor in a Baron who got WAY off course on the way from Nassau in the Bahamas to Fort Pierce FL. A couple of F-4's intercepted him in IMC off the coast of North Carolina, and one of the Phantoms collided with the Baron when the Baron made an unexpected turn into the fighter as the fighter was breaking off. The F-4 made it back to SJAFB, but the Baron went down, with no survivors.

 

[Henning]

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?

No. Not even fathomable in those circumstance, that's hijacked civilians, and though we talk a mean game, Carter beat us up for all time by bargaining for hostages, but that's a whole different story. Carter is a perfect example of why a really nice and very intelligent guy shouldn't be President. Too Soft. Just wasn't ready to blow up his 440(?) hostages with the rest of Tehran. Russkies were though, and said so. Pre 9/11 there is not one (I believe) person at that level of command authority who would shoot down a plane full of hostages. It wasn't in our national psyche.

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?

First plane hits other 3 get pickled. Issue the order to shoot down over water or minimally inhabited ground, but do not let them get to a population center (Personnally, I would care much if it did hit a pop center, but the orders have to sound right).

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?

Intercept and and drive him over. If that doesn't work, shoot.

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?

Tell the fighter jock to break off his tail with his wing. Nothing there would hurt the plane too awfully, and without a horizontal stab to hold the nose up, the plane will probably bore a hole nearly straight down minimizing the disspersal pattern of his cargo.

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?

If it looks like it's heavy, you shoot it. If it looks light, you break it. If they're "innocents", then they're too stupid to live anyway.

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.

Nope, I pretty much wouldn't want to be that person either. You're pretty much F****d. No matter what call you make or the outcome, somebody important to somebody ain't gonna like it and you are looking at a minimum of two to three years defending your decision before various commitees and review boards. With any luck you will be vindicated because there was some nefarious weapon onboard. If there isn't, at best your career is ruined, and depending on the tone of public sentiment, you may get fed to the wolves (prosecuters).

 

[poadeleted20]

Tell the fighter jock to break off his tail with his wing.

That's very hard to execute successfully against a very small moving target and a suicide maneuver if accomplished. You OK ordering one of your fighter crews to their death on a low-probability-of-success mission?

 

[Terry Miller]

This brings to mind a dialog in a movie that I'm hard pressed to think of a more absurd piece of writing.

In the movie Dawn's Early Light, Colonel goofus explains the 'Cut the head off the Chicken' plan, and goes on to explain that they will simply order all the civilian airline aircraft in the US to launch and ram the soviet bombers.

If that's not bad enough.....

The Admiral doesn't just calmy walk around the table and slay this man, he responds, 'You want to get on the horn and order the airliners in the air Colonel? Because all of our communications are down.'

What? Yeh, it's only absurd because our comms are down.

Well, come to think of it. This wasn't dialog, but the salute scene at the end when one 747 has a port quarter shot on the other makes the dialog at least a tie.

Ya'll ARE joking about the wing tipping thing, right?

OK soldier, an intruder has entered your DP, what are you going to do?

Shoot him sir.

NO, no, no. Think soldier. What do you have there.

A rifle.

What's on the end of the rifle?

A bayonet.......Ahhh, I use the rifle like a spear instead of a firearm and poke him with it.

NO, no, no. Think soldier.

......I take the bayonet off the rifle, use it like a knife and stab him with it.

NO, no, no. Think soldier.

I could take the bayonet off the rifle, use the grip end to beat him as if it were a stone.

Nowwww you're getting it.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

On the discovery channel last week, there was an actual British aviator being celebrated. He was a WWII vet who rammed a German bomber with a Spitfire and survived. They dug up parts of his plane in London; under a street near a water main. IIRC, he was out of ammo but determined the bomber would not reach it's target.
Point is, both planes went down. That wouldn't be much fun in the congested area of the ADIZ.

Best,

Dave

 

[Terry Miller]

Did they have any photos of the incident?

I saw a photo sequence once of a Spitfire sawing off the tail of the German aircraft with his prop. It ruined both airplanes but the brit was able to bail out before the Spit fell into the ground.

I guess when the blood was up, he just couldn't quit the fight.

 

[poadeleted20]

...rammed a German bomber with a Spitfire...

Ramming a large, unmaneuverable aircraft with a small, maneuverable aircraft is a whole lot easier than hitting a small, agile aircraft with a larger, faster one. That's why Vietnam-era fighters were able to beat single SA-2's if they could visually acquire them. You put me in a C-150, and you fly an F-16, and if I can see you, you will never hit me. Yes, the F-16 can pull 9 g's, but that's at very high speed; the C-150 still has a much smaller turning radius, and that's key in avoiding a ram. Of course, an F-16 would have no trouble at all ramming a 767.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Terry:

I didn't sit and watch the entire episode. Of what I saw, the had some scenes from the ground with Bombers overhead and British planes engaging, but there was no actual close up sequence of the incident above. It may have been the History Channel now that I think of it. I'll try to go back and look.

Ramming wouldn't be high on my list as a rotary wing guy either. The incidend above was at a different time, under war conditions that held the fate of a country in the balance. The pilot of the Spitfire was badly burned. Don't think the Germans survived.
Kind of like a knife fight. Don't get into one of those and not expect to get cut up if the other guy knows what he's doing.

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

That's very hard to execute successfully against a very small moving target and a suicide maneuver if accomplished. You OK ordering one of your fighter crews to their death on a low-probability-of-success mission?

I don't see it as a suicide mission. There is nothing to the tail of a 150. The wings of an A-10 or F-16 are made of some rather thick and stout metal, the military jet will survive the confrontation just fine. It isn't a difficult manuver either, easier for an A-10 than an F-16 though.

As far as Anthrax goes though, I wouldn't worry, not many people gonna die. I'd be more concerned with strains of hemoragic fevers. Those are a lot scarier.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't see it as a suicide mission. There is nothing to the tail of a 150. The wings of an A-10 or F-16 are made of some rather thick and stout metal, the military jet will survive the confrontation just fine. It isn't a difficult manuver either, easier for an A-10 than an F-16 though.

Based on twelve years of performing combat aircraft vulnerability analyses and 2000 hours in tactical jet aircraft, I respectfully disagree with your statements with the exception of the ones regarding the A-10, which would have a much better chance of hitting the mark and surviving the encounter. Not a guarantee, mind you, but a much better chance. In any event, mission success probability is WAY higher witn a real anti-aircraft weapon.

 

[Terry Miller]

Thanks Dave,

I believe that is the one I was thinking of. I can't remember what I was watching when I saw the photo sequence, but I think it was a series on the Battle of Britain.

http://www.bbm.org.uk/as-holmes.htm

It appears this was not an isolated incident. At least one or two other cases popped up when I tried a few different combinations of ram, hurricane, spitfire, bomber.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Terry:

The name of the episode was something to the effect of "Saving the Queen". Evidently, the German bomber was headed to a location where the Queen was located at the time. I almost didn't watch this until I check a summary of program content.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

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.

Joe, I think you are presuming that the pilot doesn't have reason (faith in his superiors?) to believe that following his orders will save innocent lives at the expense of those in the plane, who have been deemed not so innocent by someone with a lot more information than the pilot. Chances are the pilot involved will have regrets before and after the shot, but I can't see how you would lable him a murderer if he truly believed he was saving many lives and shooting at criminals.

Fighter pilots are trained killers who think they outrank God,...but they do not have that leeway.

Really? Not one of the military pilots I've known ever gave me that impression. Sure they can be cocky, but they all know a bunch of folks (and perhaps deities) that outrank them. And AFaIK most members of the military as well as law enforcement agencies are technically "trained killers". I think that's as it should be.

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.

Now that I can agree with. The problem for the interceptors is the challenge of determining intent of a flight that could be innocently off course or deliberately flying a mission of destruction.

Lets say that a perp has just started to drive away in your car with your son still strapped in a carseat in back (pardon me for bringing your son into this (even hypothetically), but I need a dramatic perspective). You don't know for sure that the perp actually intends to hurt Sean, or even knows he's back there, and it's even possible that he is taking the car because he needs to transport his seriously injured child to the hospital and your car was the only one with the keys in it nearby. You spot him as he's about to pull out of the parking lot and can easily take him down without much chance of hurting your son, but you have to take the shot now or you might never see your son again.

What do you do (let's assume that you just recently put run flat tires on the car so shooting the tires won't stop it)?

 

[gismo]

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

Yeah, well the Russians used pencils for everything in case they needed to rewrite it to match the official party position du jour.

 

[gismo]

That's very hard to execute successfully against a very small moving target and a suicide maneuver if accomplished. You OK ordering one of your fighter crews to their death on a low-probability-of-success mission?

Wouldn't an A10's gun be able to take the tail off a 152 pretty easily? Or better yet, a gunship flying alongside?

I have often wondered why F-16's and the like are the weapon of choice in these intercepts. You'd think they would be using something more appropriate.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wouldn't an A10's gun be able to take the tail off a 152 pretty easily?

I believe an A-10 could hit a C-152 with its gun, but carefully sawing off the tail? No way. We're talking shooting a moving target from a moving platform with a sighting system not designed for that purpose. A burst of a couple of seconds would probably result in a few shells hitting the plane, but unless the A-10 was carrying the right ammo, little effect would result. The standard anti-armor ammo would merely punch little 1-inch diameter holes through the plane, and three or four of those in the tail cone wouldn't take the plane down unless by sheer luck they hit the elevator control cables. They'd need HEI (high explosive incendiary) rounds to be effective, and those would rip the plane apart.

Or better yet, a gunship flying alongside?

Much better chance using a 7.62mm mini-gun fired by a door gunner. With tracers, you might have a pretty good chance of sawing the tail off assuming the C-150 pilots were unaware of the helo's presence and not maneuvering.

I have often wondered why F-16's and the like are the weapon of choice in these intercepts. You'd think they would be using something more appropriate.

Because, with their anti-aircraft missiles and air-to-air radar, they are the right weapon for the real threat -- a large fast-mover like a hijacked airliner or even a bizjet, or a low-flying cruise missile.

 

[poadeleted3]

snip


Lets say that a perp has just started to drive away in your car with your son still strapped in a carseat in back (pardon me for bringing your son into this (even hypothetically), but I need a dramatic perspective). You don't know for sure that the perp actually intends to hurt Sean, or even knows he's back there, and it's even possible that he is taking the car because he needs to transport his seriously injured child to the hospital and your car was the only one with the keys in it nearby. You spot him as he's about to pull out of the parking lot and can easily take him down without much chance of hurting your son, but you have to take the shot now or you might never see your son again.

What do you do (let's assume that you just recently put run flat tires on the car so shooting the tires won't stop it)?

Well, a couple of things: We'll ignore the basic security measures I take to keep your scenario from happening (don't leave keys in the car, or the kid for that matter!), and address it. Besides, I certainly wouldn't shoot the tires in such a situation, I'd shoot the kidnapper. If someone takes my car with my kid inside, he's not a suspected hostile, he's a known hostile. If someone hijacks a plane and flies it toward the capital, he's a known hostile, not a suspected hostile.

That is not the scenario we are discussing, though. What people here, and in the press judging by the questions they are asking and the hassling they are giving DHS, are pushing for is shooting down GA aircraft involved in instances like the lost C-150 in the name of security in some cases. In other cases, they seem to want the planes shot down because the pilots are stupid and endanger all of our flying privileges. They are talking about executing Americans for violating a rule... not even a law.

Now, the press would love to run stories of a Cessna being blown out of the air, especially if they got to splash pictures of a dead kid on our screens and newspapers. But, when that happens, and I think it's inevitable given the pressure for it to that is being applies, how many of you think GA will continue to fly in this country? Some people will support such measures: some people will support anything in the name of security. Others will raise an outcry, and the government will mollify them by grounding us. Far worse, though, the government will have learned that it can execute American citizens with seeming impunity, and the final nail will have been driven in the Constitution. We will be a nation ruled by fear and death. But others will remember, and that innocent family won't be the last to die. I can easily foresee such a thing spiralling out of control. As I've said several times now, people are still dying because of Ruby Ridge and Waco. What makes you think an execution of this sort would have any different results?

It is for these reasons that I feel GA around the capitol is not worth the risk involved. Shooting down a GA aircraft with law abiding American citizens inside is almost inevitable, IMHO, and the consequences are way to far reaching. I no longer think GA should be allowed in the ADIZ at all. The consequences of banning GA in the ADIZ are not as drastic as allowing our government to set a precedent of murdering Americans outside the bounds of law, for no other offense than violating security regulations.

 

[sere]

Yeah, well the Russians used pencils for everything in case they needed to rewrite it to match the official party position du jour.

LOL I think our leaders have changed to pencils then too.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Well, a couple of things: We'll ignore the basic security measures I take to keep your scenario from happening (don't leave keys in the car, or the kid for that matter!), and address it. Besides, I certainly wouldn't shoot the tires in such a situation, I'd shoot the kidnapper. If someone takes my car with my kid inside, he's not a suspected hostile, he's a known hostile. If someone hijacks a plane and flies it toward the capital, he's a known hostile, not a suspected hostile.

That is not the scenario we are discussing, though. What people here, and in the press judging by the questions they are asking and the hassling they are giving DHS, are pushing for is shooting down GA aircraft involved in instances like the lost C-150 in the name of security in some cases. In other cases, they seem to want the planes shot down because the pilots are stupid and endanger all of our flying privileges. They are talking about executing Americans for violating a rule... not even a law.

Now, the press would love to run stories of a Cessna being blown out of the air, especially if they got to splash pictures of a dead kid on our screens and newspapers. But, when that happens, and I think it's inevitable given the pressure for it to that is being applies, how many of you think GA will continue to fly in this country? Some people will support such measures: some people will support anything in the name of security. Others will raise an outcry, and the government will mollify them by grounding us. Far worse, though, the government will have learned that it can execute American citizens with seeming impunity, and the final nail will have been driven in the Constitution. We will be a nation ruled by fear and death. But others will remember, and that innocent family won't be the last to die. I can easily foresee such a thing spiralling out of control. As I've said several times now, people are still dying because of Ruby Ridge and Waco. What makes you think an execution of this sort would have any different results?

It is for these reasons that I feel GA around the capitol is not worth the risk involved. Shooting down a GA aircraft with law abiding American citizens inside is almost inevitable, IMHO, and the consequences are way to far reaching. I no longer think GA should be allowed in the ADIZ at all. The consequences of banning GA in the ADIZ are not as drastic as allowing our government to set a precedent of murdering Americans outside the bounds of law, for no other offense than violating security regulations.

You may very well be right about GA not being worth the risk near the capital. But it's too bad one of the main reasons it may not be worth the risk is because of the easily remedied, slip shod pilot's NAV & procedures, usually only to suit their own self centered sport/business agenda.

This is particularly onerous for our present USA GA freedoms concomitant with the implementation of the new LSA training requirements which allow pilots in the air PIC with, of all things, LESS NAVIGATION TRAINING !

How pathetic to endure the huge GA losses above simply because so many pilots are too cheap for basic NAV training and for subsiquent meticulous following of those proceedures, to conceed to the insecure politicians the boundaries of a few hundred square miles of airspace in the name of the illusion of the security of their constituents.

 

[Brian Austin]

How pathetic to endure the huge GA losses above simply because so many pilots are too cheap for basic NAV training and for subsiquent meticulous following of those proceedures, to conceed to the insecure politicians the boundaries of a few hundred square miles of airspace in the name of the illusion of the security of their constituents.

Change the rules.

You want to fly in the ADIZ? Go through the same checks required for GA to fly into Ronald Reagan (or which airport? I forget). Background check, two hours of ADIZ familiarization by an endorsed CFI, written test, and a special endorsement/addition (not rating) to your license showing you passed the course. FSS checks name against list before issuing flight plan approval. No one is allowed into ADIZ without flight plan. Part 121 and maybe 135 exempt from the rules. VFR/IFR doesn't matter.

 

[Bonanza]

Change the rules.

You want to fly in the ADIZ? Go through the same checks required for GA to fly into Ronald Reagan (or which airport? I forget). Background check, two hours of ADIZ familiarization by an endorsed CFI, written test, and a special endorsement/addition (not rating) to your license showing you passed the course. FSS checks name against list before issuing flight plan approval. No one is allowed into ADIZ without flight plan. Part 121 and maybe 135 exempt from the rules. VFR/IFR doesn't matter.

This won't make a blind bit of difference. The people causing the problems are not those who are following the rules, flying in the ADIZ, but those who blunder on in whether by mistake or ignorance or incompetence. Changing the rules and requiring checks etc will never stop this, it will just further inconvenience those of us who manage to fly the ADIZ legitimately and without problems.
Stephen.

 

[Brian Austin]

This won't make a blind bit of difference. The people causing the problems are not those who are following the rules, flying in the ADIZ, but those who blunder on in whether by mistake or ignorance or incompetence. Changing the rules and requiring checks etc will never stop this, it will just further inconvenience those of us who manage to fly the ADIZ legitimately and without problems.
Stephen.

I disagree. Right now, any PPL can fly in the ADIZ. It's a special enforcement area but not restricted in any way.

Stop making it "yeah, you can fly there, just call these guys first and file a flight plan" to "no, you can't fly there without an endorsement from the FAA". It changes the mentality of those flying into it. For those who haven't been up for a while (like the C150 guy), the whole concept of "no one files a flight plan anymore" is completely irrelevant. Want to fly this way? Got to have a special item on your license.

Once publicized, I think the idea of the ADIZ will move from a "mere nuisance, let's see if we can go around it" to "get the training needed or don't even come close".

Will it take care of all the problems? Nope. Human nature being what it is, people make mistakes. But I'd be willing to bet it would reduce the number of infractions, if only because of the additional training required.

 

[Bonanza]

I disagree. Right now, any PPL can fly in the ADIZ. It's a special enforcement area but not restricted in any way.

Stop making it "yeah, you can fly there, just call these guys first and file a flight plan" to "no, you can't fly there without an endorsement from the FAA". It changes the mentality of those flying into it. For those who haven't been up for a while (like the C150 guy), the whole concept of "no one files a flight plan anymore" is completely irrelevant. Want to fly this way? Got to have a special item on your license.

Once publicized, I think the idea of the ADIZ will move from a "mere nuisance, let's see if we can go around it" to "get the training needed or don't even come close".

Will it take care of all the problems? Nope. Human nature being what it is, people make mistakes. But I'd be willing to bet it would reduce the number of infractions, if only because of the additional training required.

OK, let's assume you are right and move on to the next problem with your solution.
I recently flew over to Washington (Freeway) from over here on the West Coast. I filed IFR, I followed the rules and all went well. According to your scenario I would have had to have 2 hours of ADIZ familiarization from an endorsed instructor. I am not quite sure how I would have managed that without putting down at an airport outside the ADIZ, doing the familiarization, waiting 3 months for the FAA to issue the endorsement etc etc. Not to mention that I am a resident, not a citizen, and therefore probably would be excluded anyway. This would effectively end the ability of anyone from outside the DC area from being able to fly within the ADIZ.
It is my impression that most of the incursions are caused by local pilots cutting it too close, getting lost or just ignoring the rules. There is a set of rules in place which are not unduly restrictive and work if they are followed by everyone. Just replacing one set of rules with another will not work, there will still be incursions.
What is the answer? If I knew that I would be head of the FAA or TSA or some other outfit. A start would be permanently yanking the licence and impounding the plane for any infringement. That would share the responsibility for education between the pilot and the operator and would likely make sure that the sort of flying club or school that rents out planes without a proper ADIZ briefing or being sure that the pilot is capable of adequate navigation suffers as much as the pilot. For the private owner like me it would be an added incentive to make sure we get it right.
Stephen.

 

[wsuffa]

But I'd be willing to bet it would reduce the number of infractions, if only because of the additional training required.

OK, now how do you propose to handle folks like me, who live in Texas and fly into the ADIZ (under IFR) several times a year?

I'd do the security thing at Potomac (because it's a lot closer than HEF to Alexandria, one of my destinations up there), except for the fact that it's a full day's worth of effort, and I'm not usually up there long enough on a weekday to go through all the brain damage of two trips to Potomac plus one to National for fingerprints. By car, HEF to Potomac is an hour on a good day, twice as long on a bad day. Yeah, I miss National, it was a LOT more convenient.

Now, if you're telling me I have to go through the same process to even fly into the ADIZ, you've done a lot of things. If I stay out of the ADIZ (file for OKV or MRB, for example), the nearest reasonable IFR alternate is Dulles. Oops, off limits. BWI, same deal. Now I have to carry a lot more fuel or make an additional stop to have enough to get to ...?

By the time you set up a process and training program for out-of-area folks, you might as well require background checks for all pilots, and special training everywhere. After all, P-49 gets a lot of incursions, too. As do TFR's.

Sorry, can't agree with your proposal here.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I disagree. Right now, any PPL can fly in the ADIZ. It's a special enforcement area but not restricted in any way.

Stop making it "yeah, you can fly there, just call these guys first and file a flight plan" to "no, you can't fly there without an endorsement from the FAA". It changes the mentality of those flying into it. For those who haven't been up for a while (like the C150 guy), the whole concept of "no one files a flight plan anymore" is completely irrelevant. Want to fly this way? Got to have a special item on your license.

Once publicized, I think the idea of the ADIZ will move from a "mere nuisance, let's see if we can go around it" to "get the training needed or don't even come close".

Will it take care of all the problems? Nope. Human nature being what it is, people make mistakes. But I'd be willing to bet it would reduce the number of infractions, if only because of the additional training required.

We already do have the training, ratings & endorsements required. It's called the Private Pilot License. VERY painful fines for errant PICs could possibly help their deficiencies though.

 

[Brian Austin]

You're both assuming it has to be some local training. Why? I said "familiarization course" not flight time in the ADIZ. Why can't it be a CFI and pilot sitting down, going through a FAA-approved curriculum regarding ADIZ procedures and requirements, endorsed logbook, passing a written test and getting the stamp of approval from the FAA or TSA? The goal isn't to see if you can fly. It's to see that you understand the requirements of flying in and around the airspace, the need for good navigation skills, familiar landmarks to identify course via pilotage, etc..

Using the Washington ADIZ as a security zone without any effective security is a joke in itself. Intercepting any aircraft and THEN identifying the pilot is a reactive attempt to secure something. Anyone in security KNOWS that reactive security is a failure from the start.

I'd even go so far as to say anyone passing the course automatically gets into National with a background check.

 

[wsuffa]

You're both assuming it has to be some local training. Why? I said "familiarization course" not flight time in the ADIZ. Why can't it be a CFI and pilot sitting down, going through a FAA-approved curriculum regarding ADIZ procedures and requirements, endorsed logbook, passing a written test and getting the stamp of approval from the FAA or TSA? The goal isn't to see if you can fly. It's to see that you understand the requirements of flying in and around the airspace, the need for good navigation skills, familiar landmarks to identify course via pilotage, etc..

Using the Washington ADIZ as a security zone without any effective security is a joke in itself. Intercepting any aircraft and THEN identifying the pilot is a reactive attempt to secure something. Anyone in security KNOWS that reactive security is a failure from the start.

I'd even go so far as to say anyone passing the course automatically gets into National with a background check.

Brian, I know more about the ADIZ than most all of the CFI's down here. I know more about the ADIZ than the DE down here. I've probably flown into it more than 80% of the CFI's in this part of the country.

*I* did the homework, *I* studied the NOTAMs, *I* did the AOPA online course. Now you're proposing to penalize me because I learned the rules. BTW, the ADIZ rules, unlike the FRZ (Potomac, College Park, Hyde) rules are by NOTAM, not SFAR. That means they're subject to change. Does the training become invalid when the NOTAM changes?

FOr the FRZ (and a background check), you've got to go to the airport to register and view the tape. You've got to get fingerprints from a TSA-qualified source. And the FSDO is involved. My bet is that the FSDO here wouldn't have a clue how to handle it.

Now, if I could get the FRZ (i.e. Potomac) approval locally, I would, but that's not happening. You have to go to DC.

And it still doesn't cure the problem of a "pop-up" TFR.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Brian:

Because we have enough training and instructor requirements already. I have to take annual recurrent training already; I participate in Wings each year, get at least one and sometimes two IPCs per year even though current. Just don't need more stacked on.

I deal with MOAs, prohibited areas, restricted areas, warning areas, Alert areas and more than one ADIZ already. There are ADIZes in other places besides D.C. For those of us that fly abroad, there are plenty of things to get familiar with already and there are mechanisms in place. Don't add new ones.

Talked to a friend last night that flies 57s for Northwest Airlines; they get less time in the sim each year that I get at a recurrent training course.

There are those that take no training. Just go fly around and bust airspace: then it well uuuhhh, geee. No one told me!! Well, did you ask? I'm tired of having the folks that don't care enough to know what they're doing causing those of us that really try to have more rules, courses and requirements.

I'm not saying I don't ever do anything wrong. But, I sure do a lot to try to know what I'm doing. Let's shift some of that burden to the folks that don't get IPC, BFRs, participate in annual training or Wings. If I file IFR from here, the ADIZ is seamless for me. I do have to be on a flight plan. I can go to Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, over Cuba, etc. that way, but not D.C. without special training?

Best,

Dave

 

[poadeleted20]

Keep in mind that a big chunk of the incursions have been CFI's and commercial pilots, not just Privates, so the problem isn't just pilot certification level. Many of the incursions are folks who are aware of the ADIZ but don't want to go through the hassle of filing, so they try to sneak around the edge with six feet between their wingtip light and the ADIZ boundary. Until people start allowing for the inaccuracies of navigation, charting, and the radars used to enforce the zone, this stuff will keep happening. Like I said before, if you don't file, give it 5 miles.

 

[SJP]

About mid-morning on 9/11, an Iranian-born professor at my school asked me what I thought would happen as a result of the events of the day. "We're going to war," I said, "like after Pearl Harbor." His look of stunned surprise indicated that such a response had not even entered his mind. I continued, "We're going to find out who did this, and we're going to kill them and everyone who provided support for it, and attack any country that helped them." "This is a very bad day for all of us, Ron," he said. And he was right.

I was watching cable with the cable guy (who had just installed it), and called my late father in the UK while we watched the towers come down. He said, "Son, someone out there is either very brave, or very stupid. The US is going to turn some real-estate into glass after this".

It wasn't terrorism any more that Pearl Harbor was, but it was an act of war that couldn't go unanswered.

 

[gismo]

Well, a couple of things: We'll ignore the basic security measures I take to keep your scenario from happening (don't leave keys in the car, or the kid for that matter!), and address it.

Good, you can do things to minimize this particular risk, including not leaving a kid in the car while you aren't in it as well, but just for the hypothetical, let's assume a brain fart (or semi-emergency) had you away from the car with keys and kid inside.

Besides, I certainly wouldn't shoot the tires in such a situation, I'd shoot the kidnapper. If someone takes my car with my kid inside, he's not a suspected hostile, he's a known hostile. If someone hijacks a plane and flies it toward the capital, he's a known hostile, not a suspected hostile.

.

Ah, but there are other possibilities. I gave one: the driver was responding to a valid emergency and decided to steal a car rather than let his own child die and due to the stress of the situation didn't even notice an extra kid in the car. Another would be a ditz who mistook your car for his. A third would be someone stealing the car on purpose that didn't realize there was a child in the car. Would you shoot someone for trying to save their own child, just being stupid, or intentionally stealing a car? How could you tell difference between any of these scenarios and the conclusion that you or most any parent (myself included) would jump to: The guy is kidnapping my child!

That is not the scenario we are discussing, though. What people here, and in the press judging by the questions they are asking and the hassling they are giving DHS, are pushing for is shooting down GA aircraft involved in instances like the lost C-150 in the name of security in some cases. In other cases, they seem to want the planes shot down because the pilots are stupid and endanger all of our flying privileges. They are talking about executing Americans for violating a rule... not even a law.

Maybe some are, but personally I think we are talking about shooting down a plane because it may be a serious threat, not because a rule (or law) was broken.

Now, the press would love to run stories of a Cessna being blown out of the air, especially if they got to splash pictures of a dead kid on our screens and newspapers. But, when that happens, and I think it's inevitable given the pressure for it to that is being applies, how many of you think GA will continue to fly in this country? Some people will support such measures: some people will support anything in the name of security. Others will raise an outcry, and the government will mollify them by grounding us. Far worse, though, the government will have learned that it can execute American citizens with seeming impunity, and the final nail will have been driven in the Constitution. We will be a nation ruled by fear and death. But others will remember, and that innocent family won't be the last to die. I can easily foresee such a thing spiralling out of control. As I've said several times now, people are still dying because of Ruby Ridge and Waco. What makes you think an execution of this sort would have any different results?

I suspect you are right about most of that.

It is for these reasons that I feel GA around the capitol is not worth the risk involved. Shooting down a GA aircraft with law abiding American citizens inside is almost inevitable, IMHO, and the consequences are way to far reaching. I no longer think GA should be allowed in the ADIZ at all. The consequences of banning GA in the ADIZ are not as drastic as allowing our government to set a precedent of murdering Americans outside the bounds of law, for no other offense than violating security regulations.

I think that (shutting down GA in the ADIZ) is a really bad idea. First, it parallels the same wrong mentality that pervades the non flying public: "Those planes are just useless toys of the rich and should be banned because they don't do me any good". Second, it punishes far more "innocents" than wrongdoers and IMO that's just plain wrong. Third, once you open that door, it will expand until the effect is the same as you were trying to avoid EG the grounding of all GA.