• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,848
Reaction score
14,465
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
With no ammunition, pilot ordered to take down United 93

The Washington Post's Anqoinette Crosby talks with reporter Steve Hendrix about one of the first fighter pilots to scramble after the attacks of Sept. 11. With no ordinance on board her jet, she was faced with the possibility of ramming her plane into one of the hijacked passenger jets. (Anqoinette Crosby and Jason Aldag)

Video link,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...wn-united-93/2011/09/08/gIQAgaCNDK_video.html
 
Last edited:
What's the difference between ramming (and presumably ejecting safely) and destroying it with a missile?
 
How in the world could one eject and be certain it would hit the other plane? Can you imagine having to live with that?
 
What's the difference between ramming (and presumably ejecting safely) and destroying it with a missile?

The presumably part.
 
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.
 
What's the difference between ramming (and presumably ejecting safely) and destroying it with a missile?

There was no guarantee that should could both eject safely before impact and ram her target with accuracy.
 
What scares me the most is the idea that in 2001 we did not have ARMED and READY combat aircraft at the military airfield designated as the interception location for aircraft around Washington, DC. It's truly unfortunate that it took something like the 9/11 tragedy for our government to drag its head out from beneath its knees in this regard.
 
How in the world could one eject and be certain it would hit the other plane? Can you imagine having to live with that?
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.


There was no guarantee that should could both eject safely before impact and ram her target with accuracy.
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.
 
Last edited:
There was no guarantee that should could both eject safely before impact and ram her target with accuracy.
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.
 
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.

From the accompanying article:

F-16 pilot was ready to give her life on Sept. 11 - The Washington Post

They screamed over the smoldering Pentagon, heading northwest at more than 400 mph, flying low and scanning the clear horizon. Her commander had time to think about the best place to hit the enemy.

“We don’t train to bring down airliners,” said Sasseville, now stationed at the Pentagon. “If you just hit the engine, it could still glide and you could guide it to a target. My thought was the cockpit or the wing.”

He also thought about his ejection seat. Would there be an instant just before impact?

“I was hoping to do both at the same time,” he says. “It probably wasn’t going to work, but that’s what I was hoping.”

Penney worried about missing the target if she tried to bail out.

“If you eject and your jet soars through without impact . . .” she trails off, the thought of failing more dreadful than the thought of dying.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
After all the dust settles, she didn't have to actually ram the aircraft. Right?
 
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.

He's right, it is a bad proposal.

First, there are air defenses near sensitive areas. Second, there are procedures for identifying lost aircraft and aircraft with malicious intent. In fact, there are...on any given day...20+ aircraft that violate the "Temporary Flight Restriction" airspace. Third, even with a lot of training, it is not easy for a shoulder fired missile to find a moving target that is as small as a Cessna or even a corporate jet. A missed shot will probably land in a densely populated neighborhood. The odds of success versus the risk do not warrant the use of shoulder fired ground to air missiles.
 
It's well known that 93 was shot down. The "lets roll" thing is a PR move by the gov't that didn't want to scare the **** out of it's citizens by saying we shot down an airliner. Air national guard lady says it right here, sent up to "discourage" the airliner from striking the pentagon." Now, I wonder how that would happen. And we don't send up fighters without ammo.

911 FOX reports Flight 93 shot down by an F-16 from the US National Air Guard - YouTube
 
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.

Mid-air refueling operations still have a pilot on-board to make the necessary adjustments. Between the wake turbulence, the ejection force, the fighter's inherent instability, and the sudden change in center-of-gravity of the F-16, collision is unlikely in a rear approach.

Better off in a head-on approach. Higher rate of closure means shorter time for things to mess up... although the aiming and timing becomes much harder.

While I'm not one to normally pull credentials, you do have two professional pilots telling you that this isn't as easy as you think it is.
 
It's well known that 93 was shot down. The "lets roll" thing is a PR move by the gov't that didn't want to scare the **** out of it's citizens by saying we shot down an airliner. Air national guard lady says it right here, sent up to "discourage" the airliner from striking the pentagon." Now, I wonder how that would happen. And we don't send up fighters without ammo.

911 FOX reports Flight 93 shot down by an F-16 from the US National Air Guard - YouTube

Sorry boss, but that video fits perfectly with the report above. The F-16 was sent out, but Flight 93 was down before they got there.
 
It's well known that 93 was shot down. The "lets roll" thing is a PR move by the gov't that didn't want to scare the **** out of it's citizens by saying we shot down an airliner. Air national guard lady says it right here, sent up to "discourage" the airliner from striking the pentagon." Now, I wonder how that would happen. And we don't send up fighters without ammo.

911 FOX reports Flight 93 shot down by an F-16 from the US National Air Guard - YouTube
Yes this is what I am referring to, non the less the White House made the right call.
 
Back
Top Bottom