If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane
Tchiowa wrote:
The US did *NOT* force the plane to land in Canada. The US refused to let it enter their airspace. Think about that. If it were a real hijacking do you think the hijackers would obey any such directive to "not enter US airspace" ? It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US airspace. Send up a couple of jet fighters to escort it, but don't act like a scarred little girl and say "no don't come in. go away! I'm scared of you!" You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on the hijackers. No, they act like a bunch of chicken-**** cowards that they are when faced with a crisis. Let someone else deal with the plane, even if it is loaded with US citizens, even if they have a strong interest to capture the would-be hijackers for prosecution and intelligence purposes. No, all of that is trumped by their cowardice and fear of the situation. They must have zero confidence that they could handle the situation properly. They must have zero confidence that their fighters could contain the situation if it was a real hijacking. Maybe if it came to it, they wouldn't want to be the ones to order it to be shot down - because they are cowards and afraid of the PR reaction if the US public learned that it was US fighters, on the command of no less than the president or high-ranking US official, who ordered a plane full of US citizens to be shot down. Maybe that's why we were told that Bush the monkey wasn't told of the small plane that was flying in restricted airspace a few weeks ago. By putting up the impression that he wasn't told, it would also deflect implicating him as the one who would have given the final go-ahead to shoot it down. It's more important to insulate top officials from making important decisions because they are cowards and fear the PR implications of dealing with public and media analysis after the fact. This is how top officials of the Bush administration deal with the threat of *real* terrorism when it is unfolding around them. Run and hide and let others make important decisions because career and reputation are more important than excercising the responsibilities given to them. Cowards all of them. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A few fact that have not been mentioned:
The pilots were in contact with the ground. They confirmed it was not a highjacking and that they were in control. However, they were unable to reset the highjack transponder setting, so landing was the correct course of action. The jets are standard "issue" since that code had to be investigated. (Consider a case where pilots enter the code, but highjackers then enter cockpit and force pilots to tell ground that it was a glitch). Virgin's press release mentioned a "glitch" which prevented pilot from resetting the transponder in flight. Is that really a glitch ? Weren't they designed that once set, you couldn't remove the highjack code ? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Fly Guy wrote: Tchiowa wrote: The US did *NOT* force the plane to land in Canada. The US refused to let it enter their airspace. Think about that. If it were a real hijacking do you think the hijackers would obey any such directive to "not enter US airspace" ? THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets. And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced the plane to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it to land in Canada. It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US airspace. No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security. If the plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to shoot it down. Send up a couple of jet fighters to escort it, but don't act like a scarred little girl and say "no don't come in. go away! I'm scared of you!" Grow up. You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on the hijackers. No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the hijackers from getting close to a place where they could do some damage (like fly into a building). Have you forgotten 9/11 already? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Tchiowa wrote:
THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets. They weren't told that they had no permission to enter US airspace? And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced the plane to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it to land in Canada. And that also avoids the issue. Did not the US authorities force it first to land somewhere else after they told it it couldn't enter US airspace? It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US airspace. No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security. If the plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to shoot it down. Once in US airspace, you could still shoot it down if they didn't obey all orders given to it. Of course those would US fighters, flown by US airmen, shooting down fellow US citizens, on direct orders from high-ranking cowards, the issue of which you do not seem to address. I'm begining to suspect that last resort (to shoot down a commercial airliner) is a bogus threat that will never be done but the gov't makes a big deal (with the help of the media) to play up that option just to achieve or add to the deterrence factor. So they do all they can to keep even very very very remote threats out of US airspace to avoid an escalation that would lead to a shoot-down. If they were confident of their ability to shoot down a plane then they wouldn't be so anal about letting these planes (even just with no-fly-list people) into US airspace. I think they fear a breakdown in cordination and communication with the fighter pilots, combined with confusion about the potental for a false order to shoot down the plane and the political embarrasment (rage?) that would follow - law suits against top officials, even against Bush Monkey, etc. I think this is the reality they are always thinking about. You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on the hijackers. No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the hijackers from getting close to a place where they could do some damage (like fly into a building). If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down. Plenty of time to do that. What - better they crash into some Canadian buildings? Are you also a coward? Doesn't sound like the American Way at all. Or is that just a lot of bull? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Fly Guy wrote:
Tchiowa wrote: THere was no "directive". There were Canadian fighter jets. They weren't told that they had no permission to enter US airspace? Yes. Air Traffic Control denied them access. There was no government "directive" You tried to phrase it as if the Bush administration was up to something. You're way out of line. And that avoids the issue. The poster said that the US forced the plane to land in Canada. Not true. The Canadians forced it to land in Canada. And that also avoids the issue. Did not the US authorities force it first to land somewhere else after they told it it couldn't enter US airspace? No they didn't. The Canadian authorities did that. It was an act of cowardice to tell the plane it couldn't enter US airspace. No, it was a completely appropriate act of national security. If the plane had not obeyed orders the next act would be to shoot it down. Once in US airspace, you could still shoot it down if they didn't obey all orders given to it. So let it continue through Canadian airspace and hope it doesn't crash into a Canadian city? The process was SOP for all countries. You trying to make this a Bush issue is simply nonsensical. Of course those would US fighters, flown by US airmen, shooting down fellow US citizens, on direct orders from high-ranking cowards, the issue of which you do not seem to address. Because it's an idiotically silly issue. You'd think they'd want it to land in the US (by force, escorted by fighters if necessary). You'd think they'd want to get their hands on the hijackers. No you wouldn't. You'd think they'd want to prevent the hijackers from getting close to a place where they could do some damage (like fly into a building). If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down. Plenty of time to do that. Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not let it fly around to various countries to do it. What - better they crash into some Canadian buildings? Are you also a coward? Doesn't sound like the American Way at all. Or is that just a lot of bull? No, better you stop them immediately. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Tchiowa wrote:
If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down. Plenty of time to do that. Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not let it fly around to various countries to do it. It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith wrote:
Tchiowa wrote: If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down. Plenty of time to do that. Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not let it fly around to various countries to do it. It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. It was in Canadian airspace squawking a hijack alarm. Should Canada ignore this? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
mrtravel wrote:
Dave Smith wrote: It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. It was in Canadian airspace squawking a hijack alarm. Should Canada ignore this? That's an interesting question. According to the airline, they were in direct contact with the crew on the aircraft, and using their own prearranged codes, determined that the alarm was indeed false, and that the cockpit door was properly closed and locked. Prior to 9/11, I suspect the aircraft would have been permitted to fly to its destination with that kind of information. In thinking about it, I suspect it would have been allowed to continue even without that information, since the policy was to cooperate with hijackers. Now, it appears they want to do a precautionary landing. Knowing the information from the airline, I suspect that the Canadians would have allowed the aircraft to continue without landing if the US had said OK. I doubt they would ask the aircraft to land just to check on things. They might have sent up fighters to escort the aircraft into US airspace. The US refusal to allow the aircraft into the US meant it had to land in Canada. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith wrote:
It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. Disagree. Plane delcares highjack. First reaction is to scramble jets to the plane. It was in canadian airspace or close to it, so it was canadian jets that went. No brainer there. Then, the pilots confirm verbally that there is no highjkacking taking place, but are unable to reset the switch. Plane told it can't enter the USA with a "highjack" transponder ID. That is pretty reasonable. (what happens if there is then a true highjacking, pilots couldn't use the switch to signal it). So plane lands in Halifax, they spend time working out the glitch. Where there is exageration is in then scanning the aircraft for highjackers arms etc. If it was a technical glitch, it should have remained a technical glitch. Hope the passenger were treated well during the unplanned landing. In fact, the canadian government should compete against Bangor to get all those unschedules landings. Canada could promise better treatment of passengers (especially the ones whose names is close to one on the secret US lists), as well as getting the extra airport revenus from those landings. (Yes, bangor likes those landings because it generates cash for the airport). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
mrtravel wrote:
It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. It was in Canadian airspace squawking a hijack alarm. Should Canada ignore this? Was it? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane | mrtravel | Air travel | 29 | June 8th, 2005 05:05 PM |
Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane | mrtravel | Europe | 10 | June 8th, 2005 05:05 PM |
Passport Guarantor - Qualified Engineers NO,Unqualified Bookkeepers YES!! Beware Canadian Passport Holders! | Adenoid Heinkel | USA & Canada | 0 | November 15th, 2004 10:10 PM |
Passport Guarantor - Qualified Engineers NO,Unqualified Bookkeepers YES!! Beware Canadian Passport Holders! | Adenoid Heinkel | Europe | 0 | November 15th, 2004 10:10 PM |
Documents required for entry into Canada | Ted Elston | USA & Canada | 0 | May 3rd, 2004 03:09 PM |