Pregame demonstration involving parachuters at Nationals Park causes brief evacuation of U.S. Capito

dans2992 said:
if they had actually intended harm, there would have been no time to notify anyone or evacuate anything before it hit…
Click to expand...
But they have anti aircraft missiles all around to prevent people from getting to the White House or other govt. targets whether the attack be made by an ultralight, Cessna 150, or a 757... :(
 
Palmpilot said:
When a small aircraft intentionally hit the White House, I think it chipped the paint or something.
Click to expand...

flyingron said:
It never actually struck the building. It scratched up a magnolia tree on the south lawn.
Click to expand...

I see a paint chip. Left side, middle window frame, under the rope. ;)

zgybt0ugqko4x0hjr1gs.jpg
 
Wow, I didn't remember the airraft being so completely demolished!
 
The White House is not particularly in high level repair. That may have been existing damage.
But the magnolia took the brunt of it.
 
How is it the FAA’s fault? The Capitol PD officer didn’t even have as much info as Flight Aware shows, but that’s the FAA’s fault? Dude could’ve just looked at his phone to confirm what his eyes were seeing, or what?
 
ateamer said:
How is it the FAA’s fault? The Capitol PD officer didn’t even have as much info as Flight Aware shows, but that’s the FAA’s fault? Dude could’ve just looked at his phone to confirm what his eyes were seeing, or what?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many non-pilot law-enforcement personnel have even heard of the relevant apps, let alone have them installed on their phones.

Maybe it's more of an interagency coordination issue. That kind of thing is said to be a pretty common problem.
 
There is an interagency coordination. The Capitol Police just didn't avail themselves of it. They act like they should get a specific phone call about every use of the DC airspace. This doesn't happen. So someone looks up and see "Gee, there's an airplane there" and panics rather than picking up the party line and saying "what's with the plane."
 
ateamer said:
How is it the FAA’s fault? The Capitol PD officer didn’t even have as much info as Flight Aware shows, but that’s the FAA’s fault? Dude could’ve just looked at his phone to confirm what his eyes were seeing, or what?
Click to expand...
I suspect it's politics between the legislative and executive branch. The Capitol Police ultimately report up to Pelosi, in her role as speaker. She's not going to throw the Capitol Police under the bus because that would make her look bad. The FAA is an executive branch agency under the DOT.

By the time they figure out who was at fault, it will long since have dropped out of the news cycle and no one will care.
 
At the beginning of the DCA FRZ, they were ready to shoot down a King Air that had a planeload of politicians on it.
 
LesGawlik said:
At the beginning of the DCA FRZ, they were ready to shoot down a King Air that had a planeload of politicians on it.
Click to expand...
I question if anyone has enough authority to shoot down a civilian aircraft in a scenario that didn't play out like 9/11.

They used to have some mega-laser tag type of laser light beam that they were supposed to shine at you and "light you up" if you violated airspace, but I haven't heard anything about it in at least a decade and I suspect it's been taken offline.

Thankfully, after 20 years of airspace restrictions post-9/11, SFRA/FRZ violations are way down and relatively infrequent now (but do still occasionally happen, as evidenced by anyone who monitors 121.5 in the area, people just can't help themselves from clipping the "corners").
 
Brad Z said:
I question if anyone has enough authority to shoot down a civilian aircraft in a scenario that didn't play out like 9/11.
Click to expand...
WaPo seems to think there is someone with the authority.

"The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16 fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal security officials briefed separately about the incident.

Although many planes have violated restrictions imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the June 9 episode was extraordinary because the aircraft penetrated so deeply into the no-fly zone during a high-security event and remained unidentified to air defense officials for several critical minutes. Current and former homeland security officials said the incident was a significant security breakdown.

The episode, described by some officials as the closest the government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington since Sept. 11, 2001, will be the subject of two hearings on Capitol Hill today. Civil aviation officials will testify before a House subcommittee on aviation, and military officials have been invited to a classified briefing before the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

"Even without the communications breakdowns involved in Governor Fletcher's flight, serious questions remain about the adequacy of our air defense system," said Rep. Jim Turner (Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. "Does the existing no-fly zone around our nation's capital give sufficient time to intercept a terrorist controlled flight?"

A spokesman for the commander of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, would not comment on the handling of the incident, saying that rules of engagement are classified. But he and others pointed out that protocols were followed and that the air defense system as a whole is providing unprecedented security.

"The fact that the plane landed without incident June 9 indicates that interagency coordination procedures developed since 9/11 work," said the spokesman, Michael Kucharek.

A reconstruction, based in part on interviews with officials who spoke on condition they not be named, has revealed new details. Senior officials at two federal agencies who are familiar with how the air defense system worked that day said a fighter plane sent to intercept Fletcher's plane initially could not make visual contact because of cloud cover.

As a result, Eberhart did not issue the order to shoot down Fletcher's plane, according to the two officials, as well as a third government official who was briefed later on the incident. Interviews and a timeline prepared by congressional investigators also show that Fletcher's plane turned to land before it was identified.

"They had the general on the phone, and he was in position to make the call. . . . This was the closest we have come to making that difficult decision, triggering a chain of events that could be pretty horrific," one official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ot-down/2d65e479-88f4-4d17-9642-478366af0ecd/
 
Last edited:
LesGawlik said:
WaPo seems to think there is someone with the authority.

"The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16 fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal security officials briefed separately about the incident.

Although many planes have violated restrictions imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the June 9 episode was extraordinary because the aircraft penetrated so deeply into the no-fly zone during a high-security event and remained unidentified to air defense officials for several critical minutes. Current and former homeland security officials said the incident was a significant security breakdown.

The episode, described by some officials as the closest the government has come to downing a civilian plane over Washington since Sept. 11, 2001, will be the subject of two hearings on Capitol Hill today. Civil aviation officials will testify before a House subcommittee on aviation, and military officials have been invited to a classified briefing before the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.

"Even without the communications breakdowns involved in Governor Fletcher's flight, serious questions remain about the adequacy of our air defense system," said Rep. Jim Turner (Tex.), ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. "Does the existing no-fly zone around our nation's capital give sufficient time to intercept a terrorist controlled flight?"

A spokesman for the commander of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, would not comment on the handling of the incident, saying that rules of engagement are classified. But he and others pointed out that protocols were followed and that the air defense system as a whole is providing unprecedented security.

"The fact that the plane landed without incident June 9 indicates that interagency coordination procedures developed since 9/11 work," said the spokesman, Michael Kucharek.

A reconstruction, based in part on interviews with officials who spoke on condition they not be named, has revealed new details. Senior officials at two federal agencies who are familiar with how the air defense system worked that day said a fighter plane sent to intercept Fletcher's plane initially could not make visual contact because of cloud cover.

As a result, Eberhart did not issue the order to shoot down Fletcher's plane, according to the two officials, as well as a third government official who was briefed later on the incident. Interviews and a timeline prepared by congressional investigators also show that Fletcher's plane turned to land before it was identified.

"They had the general on the phone, and he was in position to make the call. . . . This was the closest we have come to making that difficult decision, triggering a chain of events that could be pretty horrific," one official said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ot-down/2d65e479-88f4-4d17-9642-478366af0ecd/
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the defense posterity shifted after that incident. Doing a Montecarlo simulation of thousands of aircraft of varying sizes and flightpaths, there would likely be only a small percentage of situations in which a hostile aircraft, large enough to injure or kill people on the ground, would be properly identified, validated, and shot down in a known area where the debris field would not cause further injuries or deaths. In the vast majority of cases, a friendly would be misidentified, a hostile would be identified as a friendly, or authorization would not come quick enough to make a difference. I'm certain that our military leaders are smart enough to tell us that there is someone with shoot-down authority, but I suspect they're also smart enough to internally have a tactical defense plan that never has a decision tree that terminates in someone actually executing that authority.

Sort of the same reason Barney Fife carried an unloaded pistol.
 
I for one am *shocked* that law enforcement overreacted to a situation they neglected to learn anything about. Shocked I say.

It’s a good thing someone had the good sense enough to not give them stinger missiles.
 
Brad Z said:
I'm certain that our military leaders are smart enough to tell us that there is someone with shoot-down authority, but I suspect they're also smart enough to internally have a tactical defense plan that never has a decision tree that terminates in someone actually executing that authority.
Click to expand...
We were seconds away from turning a King Air and a governor into shrapnel.

May you ever be right.
 
DavidWhite said:
I for one am *shocked* that law enforcement overreacted to a situation they neglected to learn anything about. Shocked I say.

It’s a good thing someone had the good sense enough to not give them stinger missiles.
Click to expand...

As a retired LEO, I agree for the most part. But let’s be real, the Capitol Police are security guards.

That said, coming from a career in a department that had very high standards (not just expected from the administration but demanded from peers) and constant high-quality training along with always trying to get better, it’s been a shock and disgusting to see how low standards are in many places. Our communities deserve Gucci, or at least Mens Wearhouse, but so many cities accept Dollar general clearance items.
 
I've worked with a few different law enforcement agencies over the years. One common thread I've found is that all of them are pretty good at not paying attention to other agencies, unless they're near equal peers. So one county may listen to another county, or one town may listen to another town; but state to local, county to fed, or vice versa? They'll pay about as much attention as they would to drunk gypsies. Maybe it's different outside NY....
 
LesGawlik said:
We were seconds away from turning a King Air and a governor into shrapnel.

May you ever be right.
Click to expand...
There's no indication that we were seconds away from anything. Brad is correct. There's likely no scenario you can come up with that shooting down a small civilian plane results in a better outcome then not shooting it down. The purpose of the DCSFRA and VIP TFRs is not to identify planes to shoot down, but to give protective agencies sufficient warning to get their protectees off the X.
 
Last edited:
think it through folks... details of the decision making process wrt shooting down an aircraft is *NOT* going to be in the public domain.
 
Bob Noel said:
think it through folks... details of the decision making process wrt shooting down an aircraft is *NOT* going to be in the public domain.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is… it’s just that logic and common sense would suggest that a shoot down order would be highly unlikely during peacetime.
 
Well, certainly your guesses are more persuasive that the statements of the people involved.
 
Lindberg said:
The people who *didn’t* shoot down a civilian plane, you mean?
Click to expand...
Precisely.

"The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16 fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal security officials briefed separately about the incident."

Maybe the reporter made it up. Wouldn't be the first time. But, in the absence of any other evidence, I would accept that over someone's guesses.
 
LesGawlik said:
Precisely.

"The top general at the North American Aerospace Defense Command was on the telephone and prepared to order an F-16 fighter to shoot down an unidentified plane that turned out to be carrying the governor of Kentucky to former president Ronald Reagan's funeral last month, according to two federal security officials briefed separately about the incident."

Maybe the reporter made it up. Wouldn't be the first time. But, in the absence of any other evidence, I would accept that over someone's guesses.
Click to expand...
I'm unclear what it is you're accepting at this point. Is it that the people who have never shot down a civilian aircraft despite being presented with the exact situation where you'd shoot down a civilian aircraft if you were ever going to shoot down an aircraft would actually shoot down a civilian aircraft? If so, then I'll go with the empirical evidence over what someone said. Especially when that someone is the same someone who said one thing and did a different thing.

Of course there's value in them publicly maintaining that they totally will shoot down a civilian plane, even when all the evidence is to the contrary. In fact, especially when all the evidence is to the contrary.
 
Know how I know you didn't read the article?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top