whats the reason behind fighter jet escorting troubled plane
Discussion
I think the reasoning behind it is if the miscreant assumes control of the plane and aims it at a residential area the pilots can bring it down.
in reality i'm not sure how well that would work over the uk with our high density population. I suppose they could pick their moment but still
in reality i'm not sure how well that would work over the uk with our high density population. I suppose they could pick their moment but still
Some Gump said:
Report live on position, status etc
Shoot it down if it looks like it's headed for a big tower
Get too close for missiles, and switch to guns.
Fly into the mothership, saving the panet.
Communicate with crew if they have radio problemsShoot it down if it looks like it's headed for a big tower
Get too close for missiles, and switch to guns.
Fly into the mothership, saving the panet.
See into flight deck to asses if terrorists have control
Guide to aircraft to an airfield
Good Q, I had wondered the same.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the 'shooting down' argument; who would give the command to knock a passenger jet out of the sky, and would it necessarily do less damage than allowing the jet to be crashed by the supposed hijacker?
I assume it's more a case of being seen to do something, even if that something is pretty much nothing when you examine it in detail. (I also don't know what a better answer would be!)
Oli.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the 'shooting down' argument; who would give the command to knock a passenger jet out of the sky, and would it necessarily do less damage than allowing the jet to be crashed by the supposed hijacker?
I assume it's more a case of being seen to do something, even if that something is pretty much nothing when you examine it in detail. (I also don't know what a better answer would be!)
Oli.
I would have thought the default action to a non-respondiong hijacked plane would be rather self serving for the likes of the Taliban?
Mission: To kill everyone on board and send a message
Plan: take control of the plane and then don't respond to any radio calls or comply with any requests
Likely outcome: Being shot down by an RAF fighter pilot.
Result: Kill everyone on board in spectacular fashion where tens of thousands of people will witness it and will make every man woman and child desperate to upload a clip that 'goes viral' reach for their camera phones and point to the sky like they are filming a sequel to Close Encounters.
Win Win, no?
Mission: To kill everyone on board and send a message
Plan: take control of the plane and then don't respond to any radio calls or comply with any requests
Likely outcome: Being shot down by an RAF fighter pilot.
Result: Kill everyone on board in spectacular fashion where tens of thousands of people will witness it and will make every man woman and child desperate to upload a clip that 'goes viral' reach for their camera phones and point to the sky like they are filming a sequel to Close Encounters.
Win Win, no?
zcacogp said:
Good Q, I had wondered the same.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the 'shooting down' argument; who would give the command to knock a passenger jet out of the sky, and would it necessarily do less damage than allowing the jet to be crashed by the supposed hijacker?
I assume it's more a case of being seen to do something, even if that something is pretty much nothing when you examine it in detail. (I also don't know what a better answer would be!)
Oli.
If you're on a hijacked passenger plane in the UK and terrorists/whoever get into the flight deck and get control of the aircraft, you're going to get shot down. I'm not entirely sure I buy the 'shooting down' argument; who would give the command to knock a passenger jet out of the sky, and would it necessarily do less damage than allowing the jet to be crashed by the supposed hijacker?
I assume it's more a case of being seen to do something, even if that something is pretty much nothing when you examine it in detail. (I also don't know what a better answer would be!)
Oli.
The order comes from the government, usually the PM.
glasgowrob said:
I think the reasoning behind it is if the miscreant assumes control of the plane and aims it at a residential area the pilots can bring it down.
in reality i'm not sure how well that would work over the uk with our high density population. I suppose they could pick their moment but still
Look out the window next time - 90% is green. in reality i'm not sure how well that would work over the uk with our high density population. I suppose they could pick their moment but still
Pixelpeep7r said:
I would have thought the default action to a non-respondiong hijacked plane would be rather self serving for the likes of the Taliban?
That's a better option than letting the aircraft crash into central London/Manchester though. What spreads more terror? 300 people getting shot down by the RAF and killing some people on the ground or 300 people flying into Buckingham palace or the city of London.
At least with shooting it down you might have some control over where the aircraft ends up.
Pixelpeep7r said:
I was on a plane once and we got surrounded by B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers - they shot a few missiles so they missed but was enough of a warning for the plane to respond to the radio calls.
<simpsons>Dramatisation, may not of happened.</simpsons>
That's nowt. I was on a passenger plane once and had a problem with the comms unit. 2 TIE fighters shadowed us, they even engaged. Thankfully, our pilot turned slightly to the left, and their lazer fire missed. That pilot must have known some moves, or something. <simpsons>Dramatisation, may not of happened.</simpsons>
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff