Check this story out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2055000/2055004.stm

Sam Harvey
sam@crew.flightadventures.com

• RE: White House Evacuated after Pilot "...,Ben_Chiu, 18:39z, 06-20-02
  • RE: White House Evacuated after Pilot "...,TD, 23:39z, 06-21-02
    • RE: White House Evacuated after Pilot "...,Madape, 23:47z, 06-21-02
      • RE: White House Evacuated after Pil...,andrewluck, 12:57z, 06-23-02
        • RE: White House Evacuated after Pil...,Ben_Chiu, 17:38z, 06-23-02
          • RE: White House Evacuated after Pil...,Madape, 22:30z, 06-23-02
            • RE: White House Evacuated after Pil...,Ben_Chiu, 01:37z, 06-24-02
    • RE: White House Evacuated after Pil...,Ben_Chiu, 17:38z, 06-23-02

Meesa thinks that pilot in big do-do!

He may not have gotten shot down, and he may not have gotten thrown in jail, but I bet the FAA has a few words and remedial training in line for him...

Ben

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.1.0.0 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.76-

If he had gotten about 3 miles closer, he would have been inside the prohibited zone that extends about 4 miles out from the Washington Monument. Unfortunately, even if that had happened, it would have been another couple minutes before 16s would have been on the scene.

I just have one question, can an AIM-9 get a lock on a piston-driven plane like the one in this situation, or would they have had to try a gun-shot?

"TD - Virtual FAA investigators are on line 2, AGAIN!!!"

Hi TD

>I just have one question, can an AIM-9 get a lock on a
>piston-driven plane like the one in this situation, or
>would they have had to try a gun-shot?

Dont really know much about missiles etc - but I assume the missile could get an radar lock on it, but probably not an IR Lock - I'm purley speculating here, maybe someone with a greater knowledge of these things could advise

Sam Harvey
sam@crew.flightadventures.com

AIM-9s will certainly lock the hot exhaust of a prop aircraft. An Argentine AF C-130 was hit by a missile over the Falkland Islands and then finished off by gunfire.

That was over the sea though. I can't believe that either the UK or US governments would authorise shooting down a civilian aircraft, not least over a populated area.

Andrew Luck
18 miles SW EGSH

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.1.0.0 =-
Registered to: Andrew P. Luck
-OLR.PL v1.76-

> I can't believe that either the UK or US
> governments would authorise shooting down a civilian aircraft, not least
> over a populated area.

Greetings Andrew:

Possible attacks from civilian aircraft are being taken very seriously here. I quote from !FDC 2/1370 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE:

"THIS NOTAM RESTATES A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ADVISORY.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, ALL COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE AIR- CRAFT FLYING IN PROXIMITY TO NEWLY ESTABLISHED OR CURRENTLY EXISTING RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED AREAS WILL BE SUBJECT TO BEING FORCED DOWN BY ARMED MILITARY AIRCRAFT. THE MILITARY HAS INDICATED THAT DEADLY FORCE WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THESE AREAS FROM UNAUTHORIZED INCURSIONS. HOWEVER, THE U.S. MILITARY WILL USE DEADLY FORCE ONLY AS A LAST RESORT, AFTER ALL OTHER MEANS ARE EXHAUSTED."

Ben

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.1.0.0 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.76-

I suppose thats fair wording...

A small aircraft like that could be potentially carry some kind of chemical agent - or nerve agent - Although shooting it down might make matters worse ?!

Sam Harvey
sam@crew.flightadventures.com

> A small aircraft like that could be potentially carry some kind of
> chemical agent - or nerve agent - Although shooting it down might make
> matters worse ?!

Greetings Sam:

While I'm by no means an expert in the field, the threat of chemical or nerve agents being spread even from an exploding aircraft is not very substantial (in fact the fire would tend to destroy any such agents). It's actually less of a hazard than if a terrorist was actually able to low level crop dusk an area. IMHO, the whole threat from the air via bio, etc. has really been overhyped according to what I've read, heard, and seen. The real "key" to such an attack is the delivery system, and aircraft have proven to be unreliable, imprecise, and inefficient for the job. I would not unduly worry about it.

Regardless, what the TFR's (Temporary Flight Restrictions) are intended to do is create a buffer zone from potential threats. In the case of a single-engine GA aircraft like the 182, I believe we'd be more inclined to stop another yahoo like that kid that flew into that bank in FL than to try and second guess what's on board and letting them do it. However if Bin Laden and his ilk were able to mount such an attack, my thoughts would be stop the thing from hitting their intended target regardless of the cost. If it's going to cause some damage anyway, I sure don't want them to hit their intended target just out of principle if nothing else.

Anyway, what do you say we return to more positive topics?

Ben

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.1.0.0 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.76-

> I just have one question, can an AIM-9 get a lock on a piston-driven
> plane like the one in this situation, or would they have had to try a
> gun-shot?

I have heard from unconfirmed sources that the Secret Service keep a supply of shoulder launched stingers on site. Also, there are radar guided and laser guided missiles that could theoretically lock on to a 182. When these folks want to take out an air threat, I think they'll find a way.

Ben

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.1.0.0 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.76-