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
(Page 2 of 5)
Failing to raise the off-course Cessna 172 on the radio, the F-16s tried to get the pilot’s attention: firing flares in front of the renegade aircraft and flashing their landing lights. When the Cessna came within five miles of downtown Madison, the governor, on the recommendation of the Wisconsin homeland security advisor, ordered the state capitol building evacuated.
The Missouri state troopers who arrested Adam Leon reported he was trying to commit suicide. “If he had turned toward Chicago, he would have gotten his wish,” says Gary Miller of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Tactical Operations Security, who monitored the slow chase. “That’s the closest we’ve ever come to shooting down somebody on my watch.”
Just 18 days later, Maine retiree William Wales, flying down to see his daughter in North Carolina, strayed over Washington, D.C.’s restricted zone. Though repeatedly hailed on emergency frequencies by F-16s, he failed to respond, prompting a lock-down at the White House, preparations to evacuate the Capitol, and frayed nerves at EADS, whose staff flagged the incident to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in Colorado and braced for an order to fire. “Everything looked to be going against this man for a while,” says Air Force Master Sergeant Michael Roberts, who was directing the interceptors from his chair in Rome that day. Wales finally saved himself when a Coast Guard helicopter flew by with a light board, a sort of neon sign, ordering him to call a certain radio frequency. He did, and was escorted to an airstrip out of harm’s way.
Last September, NORAD sent F-16s after a Mooney M20M that lost contact with controllers over Michigan and subsequently crashed near Muncie, Indiana. Military officials reported that the hobby pilot was apparently unconscious in his cockpit. He died in the crash.
Some people might say that sending a $15 million fighter designed to outduel Soviet MiGs to interdict an off-course Piper Cherokee is using an awfully big hammer to hit a pretty small nail. These days, terrorism experts do not rank kamikaze attacks by general aviation airplanes high on their list of concerns. “You could do more damage with a Ryder truck full of fertilizer,” says James Jay Carafano, a homeland security expert at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. When domestic airspace does need to be protected, other tools are more appropriate, he says, from helicopters to ground-based weapons.
Interceptions by military jets are not cheap. Flying an F-16 for an hour costs the taxpayer $1,711, according to John Salvador, head of the Civil Air Patrol’s Missions Directorate. Not to mention the hours of practice beforehand. A major focus of F-16 pilots’ interception training is learning to slow their high-performance jets enough to read the tail numbers on pleasure craft going one-fifth their speed.
But few complain about the cost. Since 9/11, the U.S. government has been in no mood to take chances in the sky, or assume suicide pilots won’t destroy their targets. “A little Cessna with 250 pounds of explosives behind the pilot is all it would take to ruin Washington’s day,” growls the FAA’s Miller, mindful of the psychological as well as the physical effect that such a crash might have.
So, as the nation clamored for security after the attacks nine years ago, the Department of Defense launched Operation Noble Eagle, to expand its zone of protection from the U.S. border to the entire domestic sky. Pilots at Andrews and other bases across the land started drilling in deceleration and tail-number-reading. The FAA cordoned off protected air pockets over such potential targets as Disneyland and NASA’s Johnson Space Center. The rules aren’t always absolute. The FAA “strongly advises” pilots to avoid flying over power plants, dams, and refineries “to the extent practicable.” A short list of flat no-fly areas within the United States includes the houses of both ex-President Bushes, in Crawford, Texas, and Kennebunkport, Maine, and the Pantex nuclear assembly plant in Amarillo, Texas.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »





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