Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dixieland South
    Last Seen
    10-11-11 @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    364

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Every commercial flight has trained, armed undercover personal on board....Awesome.

    It's those small private jets and planes that need to be monitored with the ready to shot down (STA missile) responce across every part of this country.
    Police agencies should be trained and have portable STA missile capability on the ready if needed.
    Around Stadiums, Shopping Districts, Goverment Facilities, and around any multi-social populated areas.

    No fly zones mandatory and with strict shot down policies.

    Shot down ask questions later concept.

  2. #12
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by dixiesolutions View Post
    Every commercial flight has trained, armed undercover personal on board....Awesome.

    It's those small private jets and planes that need to be monitored with the ready to shot down (STA missile) responce across every part of this country.
    Police agencies should be trained and have portable STA missile capability on the ready if needed.
    Around Stadiums, Shopping Districts, Goverment Facilities, and around any multi-social populated areas.

    No fly zones mandatory and with strict shot down policies.

    Shot down ask questions later concept.
    The correct term is "SAM."

    also this proposal is stupid.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dixieland South
    Last Seen
    10-11-11 @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    364

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    The correct term is "SAM."

    also this proposal is stupid.
    Thanks for the correction on that.

    But tell me oh great genious...What is stupid about that.?...Do you have a better option?

    If not

    Don't make ignorant accusations.
    Last edited by dixiesolutions; 09-11-11 at 03:18 PM.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,450
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    I remember when CNN was first reporting about the downed Flight 93, it was said that the debris field was about three miles long, this is not a sign of a jet doing a nose dive into the ground. My question is did anyone who was watching the news live that morning hear the same thing I did.
    The whole Civil Air Defense aspect of 9-11 is my sticking point.

    My dad was an air traffic controller for years. We discussed fighter aircraft being dispatched in hijackings I believe. Can't remember the exact context. But the upshot was that at that time, an aircraft off course and out of contact resulted in fighter aircraft being dispatched as a SAFETY measure. To actually intercept the aircraft and make eye to eye contact with the pilot and guide them to a safe landing in the event of a massive flight system failure. Shooting down was a last ditch potential solution in a hijacking situation. This was an automated process. A plane off course set off alarms, requiring contact with the pilot. A certain time off course and oht of communications and the fighters went up. Because they are the FASTEST thing we have, not to shoot the plane down.

    Now I understand that this was during the transition to the kind og sophisticated fly by wire/autopilot systems we have today, and the safety purpose this scrambling served may have become unnecessary since.

    But the "official" explanations regarding this aspect are all over the place, changing in almost every version I've seen.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  5. #15
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    In the heat of the moment and this weight on the pilots shoulders, yes I can certainly understand the anxiety felt by Penney and rightfully so. Now we must remember being rammed by another high speed aircraft if need be would be totally unexpected by the terrorist pilot, who BTW was not a seasoned pilot. Flying a large jet airliner at 500 mph and having a catastrophic structural failure would spell doom for that aircraft, it would be very taxing and with a great amount of luck for even a senior seasoned pilot to pull out of this. Hitting the engine may have not brought down the aircraft, this aircraft had two engines. Hitting the wing or tail fin would have made the aircraft very unstable, and we must remember that this aircraft still had plenty of fuel on board, a explosion or fire surely would have resulted. Here is a clip of such a incident, please keep in mind that both pilots survived this, with one landing and the other ejecting safely.

    Last edited by deltabtry; 09-11-11 at 05:06 PM.

  6. #16
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    The whole Civil Air Defense aspect of 9-11 is my sticking point.

    My dad was an air traffic controller for years. We discussed fighter aircraft being dispatched in hijackings I believe. Can't remember the exact context. But the upshot was that at that time, an aircraft off course and out of contact resulted in fighter aircraft being dispatched as a SAFETY measure. To actually intercept the aircraft and make eye to eye contact with the pilot and guide them to a safe landing in the event of a massive flight system failure. Shooting down was a last ditch potential solution in a hijacking situation. This was an automated process. A plane off course set off alarms, requiring contact with the pilot. A certain time off course and oht of communications and the fighters went up. Because they are the FASTEST thing we have, not to shoot the plane down.

    Now I understand that this was during the transition to the kind og sophisticated fly by wire/autopilot systems we have today, and the safety purpose this scrambling served may have become unnecessary since.

    But the "official" explanations regarding this aspect are all over the place, changing in almost every version I've seen.
    It is interesting and if this is the case and I heard correctly the reports on CNN, and shortly there after the reports stricken from the newscast. I completely understand and for the sake of those pilots that would be required to act in this situation. If I was one of those pilots or pilot, I to would not want credit for this shoot down.

  7. #17
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,793

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    One does what is necessary. It's a job, it's not like someone personally decided to do it; anyone could be the fighter pilot that day. Just because they call ones roll number doesn't mean one takes personal responsibility for (legal) orders.

    It would suck, but dropping bombs on the enemy (and accepting collateral damage for a worthwhile cause) probably isn't a joy either (Catch-22). I hear Somalia wasn't fantastic.


    I think the odds of success are way over 90%. A plane on a collision course is not going to suddenly vear in the last few meters during ejection. I'm no fighter pilot, but I figure a rear approach and a last-second eject should work out fine.
    Rear approach would be a horrific way to do it. Wake turbulence from an airliner would make an F-16 flip over.
    Fighter jets are incredibly unstable - literally by design. The odds of success are way lower than 90%.
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-11-11 at 09:47 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #18
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Rear approach would be a horrific way to do it. Wake turbulence from an airliner would make an F-16 flip over.
    Rear approach is frequently done with midair refueling is it not. Although I understand what you are saying and it is a very real problem ans in fact has cause many accidents, but there are avenues a pilot can take.

  9. #19
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,680
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    The pilot could have done so easily, a simple course calculation. The only variable would be if the terrorist pilot made a sudden maneuver, so the fighter would have to come from behind or post or starboard side. The hit wouldn't even have to be a direct hit, a simple clip on the wing or tail fin would have sufficed.
    Not possible. 100%...ABSOLUTELY...IMPOSSIBLE. It would take a tremendous stroke of luck to work. The aerodynamics of the aircraft and the center of gravity change drastically when the pilot ejects. The pilot usually sits well forward of the wings, so the elevator would be pitching the nose up to counter the pilot's weight, so the aircraft would pitch up when the weight of the pilot and the seat leave the cockpit. Then, the added drag that comes from either losing the canopy or leaving a huge hole in the canopy would have an effect that is unknown to me and probably unknown to the pilot of that aircraft. You don't generally guide an aircraft AFTER you've ejected...just something that isn't done.

    So what would it take? The pilot would have to fly the aircraft right up to the jet and eject maybe 0.5 seconds OR LESS before impact and even then, there is no guarantee the two aircraft will hit. Any attempt outside 100 feet would be a crap shoot and have roughly the same odds of being successful as throwing snake eyes 5 times in a row.
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  10. #20
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,457

    Re: With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

    After all the dust settles, she didn't have to actually ram the aircraft. Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •