10-12-2006, 06:41 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Here is a comment by a guy following an incident in DC in 2005 where some bozo in a cessan wandered too close to the White house and was diverted by F-16s. The emphasis is mine, not his.
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-12-2006, 06:57 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
Why do people get so upset when policymakers get information on breaking news stories from CNN et al? News stations are set up to do just that and serve as a great intelligence resource. Every USG ops center, even those at CIA and the Pentagon, have live feeds from all the major news stations on 24/7 because they serve an important purpose. Why should the government establish a redundant system?
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith. |
|
10-12-2006, 02:21 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
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.
|
10-12-2006, 02:29 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I also don't suggest scrambling fighters for every flight diversion. I do expect that planes flying over NYC at less than 500 feet trigger some alarms because they clearly pose a threat (intentional or otherwise). |
|
10-12-2006, 02:44 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-12-2006, 02:47 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-12-2006, 02:59 PM | #37 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
This discussion is informative.
Hoya is an intelligent, educated lad and shows us what people who are otherwise technologically uninformed expect of our government. Hoya doesn't understand the chain of command, the technology required to provide information and security he expects. The first question: how many flights per day occur over Manhattan? The second question: how many airfields exist in or near Manhattan? How many private flights? What is the chain of command? How much verification does it require before it goes up the chain of command? Thie expectation of hoya show naivete in his understanding of this process. Air security is a myth. We are not secure against low technology flight. 24 cessnas, some air balloons and other stuff and you could have a heyday in any city. No it is not reasonable that the head of NORAD should know about it before immediate ground observers should know.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
10-12-2006, 03:57 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
10-12-2006, 04:30 PM | #39 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Straying from the path of honest discussion once again.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are right. The comment did not expressly say NORAD found that plane. |
||||
10-12-2006, 04:48 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
|
Hoya...you're getting your ass kicked here.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|