Don't Cross That Line
Would a fighter pilot shoot down a private airplane?
- By Craig Mellow
- Air & Space magazine, March 2010
A pair of F-16s from the Washington, D.C. Air National Guard patrol over the capital, which has more no-fly zones than any other U.S. city.
USAF/SRA Dennis Young
The eight-seat recreational airplane, a single-engine Gippsland Airvan, is cruising peacefully over southern Maryland on a hazy June afternoon, pilot and passengers enjoying the view from 4,000 feet, where the Nanticoke River runs into the swamplands at the edge of the Chesapeake Bay. Suddenly—whoosh! A trademark shape most of us encounter only in the movies or at airshows darts underneath the 100-knot pleasure craft, then carves a semi-circle in the sky in front of it. A voice crackles in the pilot’s headset: “This is a United States Air Force armed F-16. You are in violation of restricted airspace. Do you require any assistance?”
No response from the Airvan. A minute or two later, the fighter is back, aiming for a more dramatic impression. It executes the “head butt,” soaring up vertically within 500 feet of the intruder’s nose. The voice in the earphones sounds less helpful this time: “This is a United States Air Force armed F-16. You have been intercepted. Please acknowledge or rock your wings.”
The jet and an unseen wingman have scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base, just east of Washington, D.C. But their controllers sit 400 miles north, outside the faded Erie Canal town of Rome, New York, amid a forest of glowing monitors at the headquarters of the Eastern Air Defense Sector (EADS). Yellow blips track every aircraft aloft east of the Mississippi River, several thousand on a typical weekday afternoon like this.
A general aviation airplane without a flight plan, chugging into restricted airspace, does not take long to stick out from the herd. If the Airvan continues to ignore the fighters in its face, EADS will pass an alert up a chain of command, where unspecified persons will have to decide what to do about it, perhaps within minutes, if the off-course pilot swings west toward the nation’s capital.
This particular interception turns out to be a dress rehearsal. The Airvan’s pilot and copilot are Bill Parris and Michael Regen, two Civil Air Patrol volunteers on a day off from their real jobs, as radio station owner and restaurant supply wholesaler. The routine is choreographed in advance with the Andrews top guns. “Nice work, braves,” Parris compliments the F-16 pilots as the passenger airplane peels off toward its home hangar, at Martin State Airport near Baltimore.
This was practice, but the real thing happens often enough. One of the few detailed studies on the subject, a 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, found 3,400 violations of restricted airspace, or about three a day, in the 39 months following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which rewrote the rules of U.S. aviation. About 88 percent of the offenders were general aviation pilots, and seven percent were military. The most common reasons for infractions were pilots altering flight plans to avoid bad weather, or not keeping up to date on the shifts and expansions of the government’s no-fly zones. The zones can change with little warning, as when the president travels. Nearly half the violations—43 percent— tallied by the GAO were in the Washington, D.C. area.
Most violators, of course, respond to a radio warning from Federal Aviation Administration controllers, and if not to that, then to the bright red and green lights used to flood the cockpit of intruders in the vicinity of Washington, and if not that, then to the Coast Guard Dolphin helicopters that sometimes precede the jet fighters. All the same, military aircraft have engaged interlopers “hundreds of times” over American skies since 9/11, says Davi D’Agostino, the GAO’s director of Defense Capabilities and Management. And defenders cite at least three cases last year alone when they feared they would be ordered to apply the ultimate sanction: annihilating a general aviation aircraft to stop it from committing a presumed terrorist act.
On April 6, 2009, what turned out to be a mentally disturbed young Canadian pilot entered U.S. airspace over Lake Superior without warning, and led Air National Guard F-16s on a five-hour chase over four states before finally landing on a country road in Missouri. Minnesota Air National Guard pilots were the first to intercept the Cessna 172 near Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. National Guard units from Wisconsin and Louisiana took over as the pilot continued south without responding to the military jets.





Comments (19)
why does the media always "scramble" fighters. Fighter jets launch from Andrews (or any other base); one scrambles eggs.
Now that's off my chest. Q. What would be the perfect aircraft for a terrorist?
A. One that doesn't look or act like a terrorist. 'nough said.
Posted by frank urben on January 23,2010 | 11:02 AM
Many of the incursions into TFR's are caused, directly or indirectly, by FAA slovenliness or simple incompetence. The FAA does a TERRIBLE job of communicating the info, and makes other errors as well.
The permanent TFR at Disneyland is NOT, per FAA orders, shown on the charts. The only reference is bureaucratic fine print gobbledegook. Even there, the FAA has refused to state the altitude in MSL of the TFR.
TFRs spring up at major stadiums like the Rose Bowl, as well as at major sports events and public gatherings. However, the FAA has never made any arrangements to include the information in the automated weather/briefing services online, which are increasingly used by pilots. Thus, the diligent pilot, HAVING BEEN KEPT IN THE DARK BY THE FAA, can be ambushed when he unknowingly flies too close to a stadium.
The "moving TFRs" that follow the President are a special problem, and especially idiotically handled by the FAA. Rather than clearly showing them superimposed on charts online, they are shown in a pigpen, confusing manner. Generally, though, they are just described in impossible bureaucratic style, so that even the most diligent pilot must take out charts, rulers, compasses ... to figure out what the FAA SHOULD have shown clearly. The text descriptions of times are also extremely confusing and sometimes wrong, as are the instructions about how to deal with the Pres. TFR.
The FAA has also ignored obvious improvements to TFR notifications, such as Email mailing lists, hotlines, and virtually every other normal communication method.
When a pilot inadvertently penetrates a TFR, we shouldn't be too quick to judge him. We should ask ourselves, "Is it really his fault, or is it yet another instance of being ambushed by FAA bureaucrats' stupidity and pilot-be-damned arrogance?"
Posted by Jack on January 23,2010 | 12:50 PM
Thank you for the invitation to re-subscribe. This introduction is very well put and intensely interesting. I enjoyed your magazine very much during my 1-year subscription and wish I could continue with it, but I cannot afford it any longer.
Keep up your good work,
Douglas A. Ploss
Antioch, Illinois
Posted by Douglas Ploss on January 23,2010 | 01:02 PM
Well worth the time to read. Very informative. While some might feel the security measures used are excessive, I for one am all for their existance. Better to be overly careful than having a repeat of 9/11, even if the threat isn't to that magnitude.
Posted by Kendra Belfield on January 23,2010 | 01:18 PM
I can attest that not all military pilots are comfortable with the idea of shooting down airliners. A friend of mine left his job as an Air Guard F-15 pilot because he was not willing to kill innocent Americans. Tough call.
Despite the fact that it commercial airliners used on 9-11, it appears that force is mostly brought against small aircraft and their operators. The fact that a Northwest Airlines plane could overfly it destination and never be intercepted should trouble us given the hair trigger response general aviation aircraft receive. It seems we want to believe that little Cessna is a bigger threat than an airliner. But is it?
Posted by Jay on January 23,2010 | 04:55 PM
Conclusion : The air force is doing its job.
Posted by pierre saindon on January 23,2010 | 10:02 PM
"NOTAM (Notice to Airmen -- a sexist holdover.)"
Give me a break. The term NOTAM comes from a time when the vast majority of airmen were ... wait for it ... men. The vast majority of airmen are still men. It is an historical holdover, if holdover it is. If we consider actual reality, it is still so generally accurate that I doubt seriously most female pilots even think about or feel troubled by it.
Posted by Brerarmold on January 24,2010 | 11:32 AM
Sounds serious but from personal experiences a half century ago when I was stationed with the antiaircraft groups protecting Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC, the command was given twice to "Fire at will" rather than the command to "Open fire." No shots were ever fired because the AAA Battery Commanders knew they would be blamed if the shootdown was a friendly aircraft. With a command of "Open fire" those COs would be off the hook, they had to follow the order.
Who is the politician or beaurocrat responsible to order "Open fire"? I doubt you'll ever find him.
Posted by Toni Stimmel on January 24,2010 | 09:16 PM
To Frank Urban:
Definitions (Courtesy of thefreedictionary.com):
Scramble - To take off with all possible haste, as to intercept enemy aircraft. or To cook (beaten eggs) until firm but with a soft consistency.
Launch - (Astronautics) (tr) to set (a missile, spacecraft, etc.) into motion; or (Engineering / Aeronautics) (tr) to catapult (an aircraft), as from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Scramble is the proper terminology for the situation they discuss in the article. Cheers.
Posted by Tim P on January 29,2010 | 07:55 PM
During WWI and the Cold War the Pilots would scramble out to their fighters and bombers to get airborn as soon as possile. That's because the enemy might be already engaged and the sooner the planes get off the ground the better.
I guess it just morphed from the pilots "scrambling" to the planes being scrambled. EDITORS' REPLY: It is curious, though, that now people "scramble" aircraft (the phrase morphed from an intransitive verb into a transitive one, for my fellow grammar geeks out there).
Posted by Ed Quinlan on February 4,2010 | 12:57 PM
I agree with Jack's comments above.
The FAA's NOTAM system (especially where Temporary Flight Restrictions are concerned) is all but useless.
It's been that way since its inception. The FAA is still stuck in the 1950's when it comes to disseminating and making this information available to pilots.
Posted by David Mudkips on February 5,2010 | 06:39 PM
I've ASKED for "stadium" TFRs when calling for a flight briefing. The briefers have NO IDEA where there might be (for instance) football games that pilots are required to avoid. If the FAA can't figure it out - how am I supposed to?
Posted by Don Wilke on February 16,2010 | 12:38 PM
Were all comments posted here since last week deleted? Sadly, we got the scenario the experts thought wouldn't happen: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/19/MNK81C3U7A.DTL.
I presume this will show up in next month's editorial... EDITORS' REPLY: We didn't delete any comments that have been posted.
Posted by Philip Wing on February 23,2010 | 10:23 PM
Other commenters have made some excellent points on the inability of the FAA to communicate by Jack, David and Don. The capricious nature of the TFR's that can have time lines from conception to enactment within the time of a typical cross country flight.
We seem to tolerate the carnage on the freeways that kills about one hundred folks a day; a world trade center attack every month and a half or so. The prior we say not a whimper, the later we lock down a major transportation mode for months and add layers of requirements regulations and invisible deadly barriers to travelers. A crazy guy attacks a government building and kills himself with two others and people are suggesting that the freedom to travel should be curtailed.
That leads us to the basic tenet of the whole thing: Is America really the "land of the free and home of the brave". Speech and travel are the most basic of freedoms. Freedom can be scary and actually dangerous. There is a price. It is easy to want to be left alone to do as we please and much tougher to leave others alone to do as they please. Our Constitution seems too weak to protect us from our fellow Americans, let alone the government. Home of the brave?
Posted by Jared on February 25,2010 | 03:40 PM
"Even if the POTUS is not banqueting with foreign dignitaries and the Sec Def is not playing racquetball, neither would have much time to make one of the most important decisions of their lives."
Don't kid ourselves now... The decision has already been made. In every VIP TFR NOTAM you will find: "use of deadly force authorized". For years after 9/11/01, when extending the TFR paranoia to prohibit even kids playing with model airplanes, the NOTAMS appeared to expressly authorize the U.S. Gestapo to fire on small children without asking questions. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Still, the whole oxymoronic system of Transportation Security is based primarily on the US government terrorizing the subjects (that's US) into being too afraid to try to exercise any constitutional rights.
Posted by Bruce on July 10,2010 | 01:09 AM
The flight restrictions over both Disney theme parks has nothing to do with security. Disney has long sought to restrict the airspace over their parks to avoid banner ads towed by general aviation aircraft. Just like flight restrictions over open air stadiums, it's all about restricting third-party advertising over these venues. After September 11th, Disney, the NFL and MLB successfully pressured Congress and the FAA to restrict the airspace under the guise of security.
Posted by Steve Philips on July 31,2010 | 03:55 AM
Jack, I just lost a million brain cells reading your post! There is ABSOLUTELY NO excuse for a pilot to not know what the TFR for his/her specific route is. TFR's and NOTAMS are a standard issuance in preflight briefings. I am a pilot and I have never had briefing issues. If I am not sure about something on DUATS pilot briefing website, I call a live person to brief me for my specific route, and flight time. That number is 1-800-WX-BRIEF. Further, all airspace and TFR altitudes are given in M.S.L. as tops and A.G.L. as the airspace floor. Even if what you stated was true about the FAA refusing to report TFR's in M.S.L. altitudes, it still wouldn't pose as a factor. This is due to the fact that all pilots should know what the field elevation is at their departing and arrival airports. Failure to learn this information is very poor on the pilot's role to gain information for situational awareness reasons. Especially if they are flying on IFR flight rules.
Regards,
Joshua
Posted by on December 8,2010 | 07:30 PM
"NOTAM (Notice to Airmen -- a sexist holdover.)" I agree with Brerarmold. Here is another fact to consider, all pilots (yes, even females) are considered, "airmen". I have never heard, nor will I ever hear the phrase, "airwomen".
Posted by on December 8,2010 | 07:37 PM