Quote:
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
I'm not sure this goes to what I was addressing. The plane he was referring to was detected. NORAD knew the plane was out there (even if they lost it temporarily) and they diverted fighter jets to intercept it (which is exactly what I said happens). Contrast that with the NYC incident where they didn't even know it was out there, despite the fact that it had also issued a distress signal.
|
Perhaps you missd the point of the guy's comments. THe plane was within three miles of the white house beofre it was intercepted but the pilot was NOT TRYING to fly to the white house. THe plane was detected as it menadered around the DC area and was eventually intercpeted as it was on a course heading near the whitehouse. But if the pilot had intended to go to the white house he would have been able to make it. I actually thought this point was made pretty clearly in the comment but you seemed to have let it slip by.
Furthermore, we do not have fighters or interceptors constantly in the sky that can simply be 'diverted' to intercept every aircraft that may stray from a lfight plan or which may appear to be going too close to a building. Typically they need to be scrambled, which is expensive and takes time. We can perhaps have them placed and prepared to protect a few targets, such as the capitol and whitehouse (although 'protect is overstating it) but it is too expensive and virtually impossible to protect all urban areas in a reasonable and timely way.
I also don't understand the signifigance you seem to be placing in the fact that this plane issued a distress signal. Are you suggesting that a terrorist intent on ramming a building would ususlaly issue such a signal? THat seems rather silly. So if a plane does issue a signal then wouldn't you expect it NOT to be a terrorist, meaning the need for interception is lessened?
Finally, nothing in the commnets I posted said that NORAD had found the -plane in question. THe comments about finding and then losing a plane were referring to a separate incident off of the Bahamas where an F-4 ended up casuing the subhject of a search to crash as a result of being unable to lock onto the small plane with its own on-board radar system. An on-board radar contact is NOT the same thing as NORAD. These small planes are hard to see on radar, even if you are in a plane nearby and are tracking them specifically, they are hard to bring down realiably (forgetting for a mmoment about the potential for collateral damage when an F-16 starts shooting AIM-9 missiles at cessna's over NYC) and becasue of the speed and distances invovled it is virtually impsosible to ensure the safety of almost anything from a determined attack with a small plane without simply banning private aviation. As archaea said, air space security is a myth.