Escorting hijacked planes?

[ikendu]

The CIA has known since the mid-90's that Al Queda was planning to use hijacked airplanes to attack public buildings (these plans were found on the laptop of an Al Queda operative captured in the Philipines). The Pentagon was mentioned specifically. I've often wondered why (before 9-11) we didnt have a protocal in place to scramble jet fighters to escort down any hijacked plane (the FAA knew the 9-11 planes were hijacked well before they actually crashed into buildings).

Today, ABC news reports that the Bush Administration has advised airlines to review their security measures because they have reason to believe that 5 man teams could hijack planes between now and October.

Does anyone have an "in" on these issues? I'm wondering if a "escort down by fighters" protocal has been put into place following 9-11.

Thanks!

 

[MichiganMan]

I imagine that the decision to shoot down a jet liner full of civilians is exponentially more concievable after 9-11, and will probably happen at the first indication of a plane hijacking. Before 9-11 such a decision would be decried as incredibly wreckless afterwards unless incredibly definitive evidence could be shown to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that the planes would otherwise have been crashed into the WTC and Pentagon with no possibility of negotiation.

Given the recent criticism from some that the Hussein brothers could have been taken alive despite a six hour firefight with the Army and you can imagine how unlikely it is that they would believe the 9-11 planes had to be shot down. It should have happened, but don't be at all surprised that it didn't.

 

[pedalinbob]

Michiganman, totally off topic, but i LOVE your gopher pic!

um...htat is a gopher, right?

Bob

 

[MichiganMan]

I think so, I didn't stick around to ask him.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[DieselDave]

There is a plan for intercept and escort of hi-jacked, unidentified or unresponsive aircraft. It has been around a long time. It is fairly common to intercept one of these aircraft. As far as getting approval to actually release a missile at an airliner or other domestic aircraft that would rest in the hands of the very top few in the government just like in the movies. Trust me, there is a plan for just about every conceivable scenario. Contingency planning is something you do in the military until you are blue in the face and then you do it some more. After you finish you start over and do it again.

 

[jtice]

ANY plain hijacked, that is attempting to enter the US will be shot down BEFORE it reaches the US shore.
This has been in effect for a few years.
I would suspect that they will now add hijacked plains ALREADY in the US to that list.
Which,, as bad as that seems,,, makes sence.

 

[Chris T]

There was a congressional inquiry shortly after 9-11 that addressed this issue. The Air Force response was that due to budget cuts and the lack of a cold war there were no nearby fighters available. The ones that were sent to intercept could not reach the hijacked planes in time. I believe that the plane that crashed in PA would have been intercepted prior to reaching NYC or DC if the passengers had not acted as they did. Also, the OIC of NORAD can now issue the order to down a civilian aircraft.

Chris

 

[Tomas]

The biggest problem with "shooting down" a hi-jacked airliner in US territory is the collateral damage.

It should be fairly obvious to even a non-terrorist that a hi-jacked airliner that is kept only over densly populated areas has a psychological and public-relations advantage in real-time.

Actually opting to shoot down an airliner over a densly populated area (let's say, uh, the DC area, Los Angles, New York, Chicago, etc.) is not only taking responsibility for the death of the people in the plane, but for those on the ground.

It would be fairly simple for an R&P organization (Rumors and Propaganda) to spin that to put the entire responsibility for all the deaths onto those who shot down the plane by claiming that while, yes, it was hi-jacked, it wasn't going to be crashed into a target, just held until some sort of demand was met ...

Now think again about having to make the decision to spash an airliner and finding the military folks whom you could be certain would follow that order without delay.

Could you do it?

Not that easy, eh?

 

[DieselDave]

Tomas I would hope and think they would all do it on order as calloused as it sounds. I wouldn't have hesitated if given the order and can't think of anyone I flew with that would. I might have never slept again or might have resigned soon after but I wouldn't have had a problem with it while airborne. The kicker is I was just an attack guy not God's gift to the world, a fighter pilot. Those guys eat their young.

 

[Tomas]

Our group shot things with cameras, Dave, or one-on-one with small arms. I wouldn't have had to make that kind of choice.

I'm sure most of the fighter jocks I knew would have done it, but more than one of them likely would have followed it in and cratered right next to it ...

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

Does anyone here plan to do NOTHING if on a plane in which several guys are attempting to take over?

I'm going down kicking and screaming if I have to, but I'm taking at least one of those *******s with me!

And I can't imagine I'll be the only one on the plane with such thoughts....

 

[LEDmodMan]

Amen! And a pissed off 6'2" 240lb man is not easy to stop!

 

[hawkhkg11]

I think after 9/11 a hi-jacking scenario has gotten more difficult to the point of being flat out unlikely. Unless they had serious weapons like firearms, I would imagine everyone on the plane would get up to take the guy(s) down...if terrorists strike again in full force, I don't think they'd use the plane in buildings thing again.

 

[Lurker]

If you are on a hijacked airplane, you don't only need to overpower the terrorists, but you need to do it before you get shot down and then you need to communicate your status and find a way to land it safely assuming the pilots were taken out.

While I agree with having a shoot-down option, I don't think it is really much of a solution. It would be regarded as a huge success for the terrorists just to get an airliner shot down by an AF jet. Think about how an event like that would reverberate through world politics and the psyche of the flying public.

But the sad fact of the matter is that the terrorists can pick and choose from an unlimited number of possible targets besides airlines and there is no way we can protect them all at all times from all possible methods. Therefore I am glad we are taking the fight to them and I hope we can figure out a way that in the long run we can eliminate the causes of the hatred against the West that is festering in certain extremist cultures (assuming we cannot eliminate certain extremist cultures completely).

 

[ikendu]

Lurker said: ...and I hope we can figure out a way that in the long run we can eliminate the causes of the hatred against the West that is festering in certain extremist cultures (assuming we cannot eliminate certain extremist cultures completely).

Amen!

This NPR link: All The Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror explores some of the causes of the hatred.

Here is the complete description from the NPR site:

It's about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran that put an end to democratic rule, and in turn led the way for the Islamic Revolution of 1979. He writes, "It was the first time the United States overthrew a foreign government. It set a pattern for years to come and shaped the way millions of people view the United States."

It takes about 35 minutes to listen to the NPR piece.

 

[Lurker]

I am not familiar with the details of the 1953 coup, but in my opinion any involvment in any way in that part of the world is going to be a losing proposition in the long run. We may not be able to evacuate the region at the present time, but if we can ever get to the point where we have nothing more than a few small token diplomatic offices in the entire region (including Israel), that would be a good thing. No military. No foreign aid. No peace talk intermediation. Let them all destroy themselves on their own.

If any military intervention is needed, let it be the UN and not the US.

Sorry if this is off topic.