Pulled over by an F-16!

[LadyTevar]

link

EMMITSBURG, Maryland (AP) -- The skies were empty at a charity air show after participants were escorted out of the area by F-16 fighter jets sent up because President Bush was in town.

The president's security no-fly air zone was extended Sunday and included the Hagerstown, Maryland, event, but at least four pilots of antique airplanes who were supposed to join the charity show were apparently unaware of the Federal Aviation Administration restrictions. They were intercepted by F-16s and escorted out of the area, federal officials said.

Bush was speaking at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland, about 26 miles from Hagerstown.

Several pilots headed to the benefit for the Experimental Aircraft Association and the Hagerstown Aviation Museum apparently were unaware of the security measure in part because their antique planes carried no radios.

A dozen planes flew into the area, causing the North American Aerospace Defense Command to scramble its fighters. The four antiques intercepted were escorted to nearby airports and forced to land. The others were warned off.

Meanwhile, at the annual event, attendees were staring at an empty sky, wondering when the show was about to start. Suddenly, according to an account in The Washington Post, the crowd saw a little propeller plane buzzing along with a sleek fighter jet flying circles around it.

It was hair-raising, said Tracey Potter, owner of Hagerstown Aircraft Services Inc. "The F-16 is an evil, menacing scary sound, and at the same time -- amazing."

Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the FAA, said the pilots would not have had the problem if they had been using radios. She said all pilots have a responsibility to check the agency's notifications.

The pilots, who were being interviewed by the Secret Service, could face penalties, including suspension of their license, Brown said.

[Wicked Pilot]

Fuckin' morons. By now people should know that if you want to venture within 50 miles of DC you need to have your shit together. The town, Emmitsburg, is already under a charted restricted area, there's another charted prohibited area right next to it, and the NOTAMs where there for the reading. It's these idiot bug smash pilots who jump in the plane and go without proper planning who are going to screw the rest of us.

[fgalkin]

Yeah, but it's an annual air show. It has been done before, with no problem. It's Dubya coming for a visit that caused this.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Drewcifer]

The pilots in question should have made themselves aware of this before ever leaving the ground. Like WP mentioned, the information was readily available if they had bothered to check.

I read somewhere that these guys were flying without radios -- is that normal? The planes they were flying were antiques that didn't have radios on board, but aren't there portable sets they could have taken up with them? Seems rather irresponsible and somewhat stupid to fly without a radio, especially into restricted airspace.

[Broomstick]

The pilots in question should have made themselves aware of this before ever leaving the ground. Like WP mentioned, the information was readily available if they had bothered to check.

Agreed.

Granted, it's a bitch that Flight Service (one of the official sources of such information) has gone down in quality since the privitization. I remember one occassion where I called to confirm TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) information and it turned out the briefer hadn't a clue and I had to tell him that there was probably one in effect. However, several groups monitor the schedules of the president and certain other goverment officials and days in advance start "forecasting" TFR's. If the POTUS is visiting a particular town on a particular day you should be able to predict with reasonable accuracy what the TFR is going to be.

It's also quite common to see TFR information for extensive areas posted prominently on the doors of airport offices, so when you go to ask for/pay for gas it's literally in front of you at eye level at some point. Here in the Chicago area you might see TFR information posted for St. Louis and Cleveland, for example.

And anyone in Maryland should be WELL aware of TFR's and their responsibilities due to the proximity of DC.

For that matter, TFR's are not new post-9/11 - they've existed for decades, along with various types of airspace restrictions. You had to know about this stuff to get your license. The required bienniel review is supposed to keep you up to date on changes in the regs, so those who got their license 60 years ago have no excuse.

I read somewhere that these guys were flying without radios -- is that normal?

It's not normal, but in most places it is not illegal. Whether or not it's a good idea depends on various factors, such as the type of airspace and whether or not there is restricted airspace nearby. I've flown without radio on quite a few occassions, but outside of equipment failure it's always been in rural areas with low traffic densities and far from areas requiring radios.

The planes they were flying were antiques that didn't have radios on board, but aren't there portable sets they could have taken up with them? Seems rather irresponsible and somewhat stupid to fly without a radio, especially into restricted airspace.

Yes, there are portable, battery operated transceivers available at a relatively low price - I own one myself. I typically carry it as a back up even when the plane itself is equipped with one or more radios.

The problem with them, particuarly in some antiques, is ambient noise. When I flew an antique Stearman - an airplane that had no radio of its own, having no electrical system with which to run avionics - there were times that a radio would have been useless due to the sheer volume of noise. Between the engine and the noise created by the airstream going by the open cockpit you just wouldn't have been able to hear anything (and yes, we were wearing hearing protection). If you tried to transmit you'd probably send more noise than speech. On the other hand, normal cruise would permit you to use a radio.

When flying without a radio you have to be even more careful to thoroughly brief yourself prior to take-off since you have no way to update your information while in flight. You don't get a pass for not having a radio. It requires more responsibility, not less.

[Molyneux]

The pilots in question should have made themselves aware of this before ever leaving the ground. Like WP mentioned, the information was readily available if they had bothered to check.

Readily available...and "Beware of the leopard"?

I read somewhere that these guys were flying without radios -- is that normal? The planes they were flying were antiques that didn't have radios on board, but aren't there portable sets they could have taken up with them? Seems rather irresponsible and somewhat stupid to fly without a radio, especially into restricted airspace.

It's mentioned in the article in the OP. Apparently, the antique planes don't have space for a radio.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wonder if the pilots involved will end up being fined for the tens of thousands of dollars it costs to fly a pair of F-16s on one mission.

[Drewcifer]

Readily available...and "Beware of the leopard"?

but seriously, even little podunk county airports out in the sticks have this type of info posted, and usually in an easily accessible area. Regardless, it is the pilot's responsibility to make themselves aware of these things prior to flight.

It's mentioned in the article in the OP. Apparently, the antique planes don't have space for a radio.

Like Broomstick mentioned a post or two above, there are portable transceivers on the market for use as backups or in planes too old to have electrical systems.

I'm not a pilot, but my best friend's dad is a flight instructor. Even on a little scenic joyride in a two-seater he took me on once, he wouldn't even taxi until I had learned how to turn on the auto-pilot, use the radio, and tune in the tower and emergency frequencies, just in case. Most pilots take flying very seriously, and rightly so.

[Frank Hipper]

Any ID on the types of "antiques" that were involved in this?

[Chardok]

Hmm...shocking it is to me that we can scramble f-16's to stop a group of menacing antique bi-planes ... But Stopping a 767 from hitting a building...PREPOSTEROUSLY DIFFICULT!

Fail, Bush. Epic Fail.

[CC]

Hmm...shocking it is to me that we can scramble f-16's to stop a group of menacing antique bi-planes ... But Stopping a 767 from hitting a building...PREPOSTEROUSLY DIFFICULT!

Fail, Bush. Epic Fail.

Gee, maybe that has to do with a heightened air defense posture since 9/11 as well as the fact that the biplanes were not deliberately flying in a manner to evade radar as were the hijacked airplanes

[Chardok]

Hmm...shocking it is to me that we can scramble f-16's to stop a group of menacing antique bi-planes ... But Stopping a 767 from hitting a building...PREPOSTEROUSLY DIFFICULT!

Fail, Bush. Epic Fail.

Gee, maybe that has to do with a heightened air defense posture since 9/11 as well as the fact that the biplanes were not deliberately flying in a manner to evade radar as were the hijacked airplanes

You do not want to get into a debate with me over the epic failures of the defenses in place on 9/11, sir, not to mention the warnings beforehand.

[CC]

Hmm...shocking it is to me that we can scramble f-16's to stop a group of menacing antique bi-planes ... But Stopping a 767 from hitting a building...PREPOSTEROUSLY DIFFICULT!

Fail, Bush. Epic Fail.

Gee, maybe that has to do with a heightened air defense posture since 9/11 as well as the fact that the biplanes were not deliberately flying in a manner to evade radar as were the hijacked airplanes

You do not want to get into a debate with me over the epic failures of the defenses in place on 9/11, sir, not to mention the warnings beforehand.

I'm not saying that there weren't failures. But it's ridiculous to use the failures then, contrasted with the current air defense that was intended to fix those errors, simply to go "Hur hur, Bush sucks!" Which is precisely what you did.

[Broomstick]

Hmm...shocking it is to me that we can scramble f-16's to stop a group of menacing antique bi-planes ... But Stopping a 767 from hitting a building...PREPOSTEROUSLY DIFFICULT!

Fail, Bush. Epic Fail.

Gee, maybe that has to do with a heightened air defense posture since 9/11 as well as the fact that the biplanes were not deliberately flying in a manner to evade radar as were the hijacked airplanes

You do not want to get into a debate with me over the epic failures of the defenses in place on 9/11, sir, not to mention the warnings beforehand.

How the hell do you propose stopping something weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds traveling hundreds of miles an hour? Seriously, dude, how do YOU propose that be done?

The only "stop" I can think of is shooting it down - in which case you have flaming airplane pieces raining down on the landscape and possibly causing just as much damage as if it had hit a building intact.

MAYBE if it was over a rural area this might be justified - but over the DC metro area? The NYC metro area? Do you think that an airliner shot down over suburbia would NOT generate casulties?

Whose house are you volunteering as a catcher's mitt?

[Broomstick]

Any ID on the types of "antiques" that were involved in this?

Let's see....

AP said one was a Grumman Tiger built in 1976 which is not only NOT an "antique" but, if I recall, really should have a radio on board (I am not delving into the regs here, but it I would think it rolled out of the factory with one installed)

Aeronetwork News said something about "vintage Jenny or Nieuport replica" - both of which are definite antiques that never had radios - but doesn't explicitly say those were the guilty airplanes in this case.

I don't if more will be forthcoming in the next few days.

[Tanasinn]

"The F-16 is an evil, menacing scary sound, and at the same time -- amazing."

Please tell me I'm not the only one who found this comment bizarrely hysterical.

[Xisiqomelir]

The pilots in question should have made themselves aware of this before ever leaving the ground. Like WP mentioned, the information was readily available if they had bothered to check.

Readily available...and "Beware of the leopard"?

This is today's best post on the forum.

Tanasinn, no.

[Chardok]

I'm not saying that there weren't failures. But it's ridiculous to use the failures then, contrasted with the current air defense that was intended to fix those errors..

My point is our defenses were fine then and more than capable and of shooting down those planes before they hit the towers.

And this is ignoring the bumbling that took place LONG before the attacks themselves. and you're goddamned right I hold that motherfucker accountable for his agencies and for the blood of every american and iraqi killed in this abortion of a "war" he used those events to justify.

As to you, Broomstick. I am DEFINITELY suggesting those planes should have been shot right the fuck down. I daresay the economic damage of falling aircraft would have been FAR less then bringing down the financial capital of the world, and that's ignoring the human factor.

Even you aren't so stupid as to think a million tons of steel rain, fire, debris, etc. X2 isn't equivalent to the debris field of two airliners raining down over even a heavily populated city; and you're damn right i'd trade one house or three houses or FIVE houses or TEN HOUSES or TWENTY HOUSES for two modern marvels of steel and technology and infrastructure and economic boon and three thousand lives.

[CC]

I'm not saying that there weren't failures. But it's ridiculous to use the failures then, contrasted with the current air defense that was intended to fix those errors..

My point is our defenses were fine then and more than capable and of shooting down those planes before they hit the towers.

The earliest you can get the jets in the air is 8:30am, assuming that NORAD is alerted and the scramble issue order as soon as the transponder goes off (and assuming that the historical 8-9 minute delay between request and takeoff holds). More likely it will be with an alert at 8:25 when a hijacking is historically suspected, with takeoff at 8:34. They now have twelve minutes to find out where Flight 11 is, get over there (New York being 190 miles away), visually inspect to make sure that they have the right aircraft (historically, an uninvolved Delta airplane was chased before they realized it wasn't Flight 11), and then realize that it is kamikazing and they need to shoot it down before it impacts at 8:46am. To be honest, I don't think you're going to get Flight 11.

After hijacking, Flight 77 successfully avoided radar detection until 5 minutes before impact. I'm not sure how our defenses should have been able to handle that one better.

First notice that Flight 175 was hijacked is 8:52am. Eleven minutes later it impacts. Fighters were airborne and over Long Island, so there is the possibility of interception, but again, there is the problem of first knowing where 175 is and visual inspection prior to shooting to make sure you've got the right target. This one could have been gotten with better communication between the FAA and NORAD.

Flight 93 should have definitely had better communication between FAA and NORAD, but an intercept wouldn't have led to any different outcome except a different crash zone.

Timeline used is that on Wikipedia.

[Broomstick]

As to you, Broomstick. I am DEFINITELY suggesting those planes should have been shot right the fuck down. I daresay the economic damage of falling aircraft would have been FAR less then bringing down the financial capital of the world, and that's ignoring the human factor.

So you're saying that as soon as there is a transponder failure on any airplane we shoot to kill? You think that wouldn't add up to equivalent death tolls in short order? Not to mention the economic impact of turning air travel into Russian roulette. Even if you just limit it to clear hijackings that's still assuming we can intercept before terrorist impact... which is not assured. Military aircraft do not have infinite speed.

Even you aren't so stupid as to think a million tons of steel rain, fire, debris, etc. X2 isn't equivalent to the debris field of two airliners raining down over even a heavily populated city; and you're damn right i'd trade one house or three houses or FIVE houses or TEN HOUSES or TWENTY HOUSES for two modern marvels of steel and technology and infrastructure and economic boon and three thousand lives.

The problem isn't one house or even ten houses - having a burning airliner slam down in Manhattan might have saved the WTC but it could have easily taken out several city blocks and still killed hundreds, if not thousands. Get a firestorm started up and potentially you could have caused more destruction and death than what actually happened. In other words, 9/11 was NOT the worst possible outcome, not by a long shot. Given the time intervals involved and geography I don't think it would have been possible to intercept the WTC airliners over rural areas - it would have been over densely populated urban territory with multi-unit residences and offices.

[The Yosemite Bear]

remember a cessna can penetrate any security.

[MKSheppard]

Military aircraft do not have infinite speed.

SAM sites do. Too bad we retired all of our Nike Hercules batteries Even with their age, they'd still have twice the engagement range against a civilian airliner than Patriot.

The problem isn't one house or even ten houses - having a burning airliner slam down in Manhattan might have saved the WTC but it could have easily taken out several city blocks and still killed hundreds, if not thousands.

Which won't be a problem if the plane is blown apart by 200 pound blast fragmentation warheads 50 miles from New York city and falls down in Browns Mill, New Jersey, a vaste wasteland of...nothing, but farm and trees.

[Kanastrous]

Military aircraft do not have infinite speed.

SAM sites do. Too bad we retired all of our Nike Hercules batteries Even with their age, they'd still have twice the engagement range against a civilian airliner than Patriot.

The problem isn't one house or even ten houses - having a burning airliner slam down in Manhattan might have saved the WTC but it could have easily taken out several city blocks and still killed hundreds, if not thousands.

Which won't be a problem if the plane is blown apart by 200 pound blast fragmentation warheads 50 miles from New York city and falls down in Browns Mill, New Jersey, a vaste wasteland of...nothing, but farm and trees.

I grew up next to a decommissioned Nike tracking site in Maryland. With about a 100 mile range, and about 3,000 mph velocity, it would be interesting to see a map of the locations of the old Nike batteries, to judge whether they could have been useful. Given the density of air traffic between Washington DC, NYC and Boston, I wonder if target discrimination wouldn't have been a major problem for the missile crews.

[MKSheppard]

I grew up next to a decommissioned Nike tracking site in Maryland. With about a 100 mile range, and about 3,000 mph velocity, it would be interesting to see a map of the locations of the old Nike batteries, to judge whether they could have been useful.

The plan was to replace NIKE with PATRIOT, but that died, and so all the CONUS batteries were torn apart, making us pretty much defenseless.

As for target discrimination; simply give all other traffic orders to descend to such and such feet; and issue orders that anything above FL xx is hostile and to terminate with prejudice.

[CC]

SAM sites do. Too bad we retired all of our Nike Hercules batteries

The threat was ICBMs however, against which Nike Hercules wasn't useful (and please, spare us anything about Zeus, Spartan etc, they simply aren't relevant to this). Hercules batteries simply didn't make sense in that threat.

Neither did Sparrow armed Eagles rather than Phoenix armed Tomcats for that matter, but that's another discussion entirely.

Even with their age, they'd still have twice the engagement range against a civilian airliner than Patriot.

Globalsecurity quotes a range of only 70km for MIM-104A, but 160km for -104C, which puts it a bit past Hercules range (maximum intercept range "in excess of 150,000 yards").

As for target discrimination; simply give all other traffic orders to descend to such and such feet; and issue orders that anything above FL xx is hostile and to terminate with prejudice.

Unfortunately, the problem is that you're only going to target friendly aircraft, the hijacked aircraft were flying a low altitude profile. There's also the problem of confirming that this is truly a hijacked airliner on a kamikaze mission, and not an innocent plane that has suffered radio or transponder failure.

I really don't see SAM batteries contributing much to defense against hijacked airliners since the odds that they'd be operational within enough time to matter are extremely low.