PhilDernerJr
2012-08-03, 10:19 AM
I read THIS (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2012/08/03/was-the-u-s-government-prepared-to-kill-all-the-passengers-on-board-a-united-flight-to-geneva/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boardingarea%2Fviewfromthewin g+(View+from+the+Wing)) blog post from one of the Boarding Area writers and was very surprised by what it said.
To me, there are many assumptions. No offense to Mr. Leff at all, but it doesn't seem as though much research was done on this.
Fighter jets have been scrambled for all sorts of things, not just for the intention of shooting down a plane during imminent terrorist threat. The real idea is that fighter jets are fast and nimble. They can catch up with planes that have problems of any kind, and guide them in. Planes that lose radio communications or have some other disturbance on board where the pilots can offer hand signals to pilots, or look into the windows to report to those on the ground what they see, bumping an uncontrolled aircraft off-course to avoid danger, or all sorts of things that very few of us are trained in or aware of.
All the talk about "the last 10 years" as if fighters were never scrambled before that. These situations lately also serve as real-life scramble training for the times that they ARE truly needed. So what's the harm?
With so much left out of the conversation, I find the whole topic to be fairly moot. But besides, what is the problem in being prepared to shoot down an airliner if it is determined they are looking to and about to crash into a skyscraper or stadium? I was surprised to read that the research was admittedly from Wikipedia, but it explains a lot. I thought it was well-known post-9/11 who can give authorization to shoot down a plane: the President, Vice President and the head honcho at NORAD if I recall correctly. Either way, it's irrelevant because this article operates under the assumption that the ONLY purpose of those fighters was in the event of needing a shoot-down. Sadly, when this is article is read by many on the internet who look to Mr. Lett as an authority, they will be further misled. I expect this from more mainstream media, not from .
Heck, I've made mistakes in my own postings and in research, and I was rightfully called out on it. Considering the Mr. Leff seems to be a miles guy and luxury traveler that doesn't actually work IN aviation, I am saddened at the sensationalism of this article.
To me, there are many assumptions. No offense to Mr. Leff at all, but it doesn't seem as though much research was done on this.
Fighter jets have been scrambled for all sorts of things, not just for the intention of shooting down a plane during imminent terrorist threat. The real idea is that fighter jets are fast and nimble. They can catch up with planes that have problems of any kind, and guide them in. Planes that lose radio communications or have some other disturbance on board where the pilots can offer hand signals to pilots, or look into the windows to report to those on the ground what they see, bumping an uncontrolled aircraft off-course to avoid danger, or all sorts of things that very few of us are trained in or aware of.
All the talk about "the last 10 years" as if fighters were never scrambled before that. These situations lately also serve as real-life scramble training for the times that they ARE truly needed. So what's the harm?
With so much left out of the conversation, I find the whole topic to be fairly moot. But besides, what is the problem in being prepared to shoot down an airliner if it is determined they are looking to and about to crash into a skyscraper or stadium? I was surprised to read that the research was admittedly from Wikipedia, but it explains a lot. I thought it was well-known post-9/11 who can give authorization to shoot down a plane: the President, Vice President and the head honcho at NORAD if I recall correctly. Either way, it's irrelevant because this article operates under the assumption that the ONLY purpose of those fighters was in the event of needing a shoot-down. Sadly, when this is article is read by many on the internet who look to Mr. Lett as an authority, they will be further misled. I expect this from more mainstream media, not from .
Heck, I've made mistakes in my own postings and in research, and I was rightfully called out on it. Considering the Mr. Leff seems to be a miles guy and luxury traveler that doesn't actually work IN aviation, I am saddened at the sensationalism of this article.