F16's Scrambled As Pilot, 75, Triggers Obama Alert

Platapus · 08-06-11, 12:13 PM

I wonder if modern heat seeking missiles would even lock on to a J3?

Especially when you have 10 minutes. That's not a long time, especially when some of that time will be spent evaluating the thread and deploying defenses.

Imagine a J3 diving with the engine off how would you shoot it down?

Would a stinger type weapon be able to lock on to a stopped J3 engine?

Small arms fire is probably not going to do it.

You can poke a lot of holes in a J3 and unless you hit the main wing beam it might keep on its ballistic course. I suppose a 20 mm round on the engine or the explosive payload would take care of it, but how hard would that be to accomplish?

I hope the USSS has already figured this out.

mobucks · 08-06-11, 12:41 PM

Kinda negligent to turn off your radio in a private plane. Bad airmen(woman)ship if you ask me.

Its nice to know at least the people in place for security do their jobs.

Platapus · 08-06-11, 01:08 PM

It is important to recognize that this was not some prohibited zone in the middle of nowhere. This was centered on O'hare Airport, which gets a little busy at times. O'hare is the third busiest airport in the world.

What was she doing flying within 30 miles of O'Hare without her radio on? Even if it is not required due to airspace designations for that area/altitude, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to have it on?

Besides, part of the Private Pilot's education is non-radio air intercepts. When these F-16's intercepted her, they did it in an specific manner that communicates their intention. She must have a pretty high self image if she thinks that F-16's would fly close to her just to admire her and her aircraft. Planes don't do that, they maintain separation, especially military jets and civilian props.

I think this lady needs to lose her ticket until she goes through some remedial training. She does not seem to have the judgment expected of a pilot operating in crowded airspace.

Here is a nice FAA document that describes Temporary Flight Restricted Zones and at the end of the document covers the interception procedure including non-radio communication.

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/not...dia/tfrweb.pdf

Krauter · 08-07-11, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

It is important to recognize that this was not some prohibited zone in the middle of nowhere. This was centered on O'hare Airport, which gets a little busy at times. O'hare is the third busiest airport in the world.

What was she doing flying within 30 miles of O'Hare without her radio on? Even if it is not required due to airspace designations for that area/altitude, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to have it on?

Besides, part of the Private Pilot's education is non-radio air intercepts. When these F-16's intercepted her, they did it in an specific manner that communicates their intention. She must have a pretty high self image if she thinks that F-16's would fly close to her just to admire her and her aircraft. Planes don't do that, they maintain separation, especially military jets and civilian props.

I think this lady needs to lose her ticket until she goes through some remedial training. She does not seem to have the judgment expected of a pilot operating in crowded airspace.

Here is a nice FAA document that describes Temporary Flight Restricted Zones and at the end of the document covers the interception procedure including non-radio communication.

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/not...dia/tfrweb.pdf

Agree whole heartedly. Just seems negligent and really stupid after reading her comments...

Jimbuna · 08-07-11, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Damn fast planes they must have had in WW2

LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobucks

sorry, it was the V-1 where they did that.

heres a pic from wikipedia of a spitfire tipping a v-1

Well corrected sir

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-06-11, 01:11 PM

Thank you Platabus. I read about Piper J-3 and I understood that its cruise speed is just 65 knots which is about 75 mph (121 km/h). Wouldn't it make sense to fly in low altitude in same direction with highways and try to make aircraft to look like being just one more car speeding in road for radar operator?

Platapus · 08-06-11, 01:15 PM

I am sure there are advantages of approaching at all altitudes. Not being an suicidal terrorist, I can't opine on which would be the best.

Since the J3 could legally approach until the edge of the TFR zone, I would imagine a higher altitude for the dive speed might be better. The lower altitude makes you more vulnerable to small arms fire and kills the ballistic trajectory option.

It is an intriguing problem to consider.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-06-11, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am sure there are advantages of approaching at all altitudes. Not being an suicidal terrorist, I can't opine on which would be the best.

Since the J3 could legally approach until the edge of the TFR zone, I would imagine a higher altitude for the dive speed might be better. The lower altitude makes you more vulnerable to small arms fire and kills the ballistic trajectory option.

It is an intriguing problem to consider.

Little strategist and tactician in me started thinking options of how to execute attack and how to prevent it. Currently it looks like that having radar directed quad 40 mm Bofors right next from presidents limo would be quite nice to have.

CaptainMattJ. · 08-06-11, 01:32 PM

Bofors? Someone is living in the past

.

Its all about the radar-guided Dual vulcan platform firing 20mm High Explosive rounds.

Theres no comparison. Youll be lucky if anyone can find half of your body parts after that thing literally shreds you like paper. not to mention your aircraft, which will look like swiss cheese on a bad day

kraznyi_oktjabr · 08-06-11, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Bofors? Someone is living in the past

.

Its all about the radar-guided Dual vulcan platform firing 20mm High Explosive rounds.

Theres no comparison. Youll be lucky if anyone can find half of your body parts after that thing literally shreds you like paper. not to mention your aircraft, which will look like swiss cheese on a bad day

If I need a gun I take Bofors, if I need a sewing machine I take Vulcan.

Jimbuna · 08-06-11, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder if modern heat seeking missiles would even lock on to a J3?

I hope the USSS has already figured this out.

Possibly radar guided?

MH · 08-06-11, 03:17 PM

Maybe optical image recognition....

Platapus · 08-06-11, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Possibly radar guided?

The RCS of a J3 head on would be significant

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Maybe optical image recognition....

That would be the best. Do we have any ManPads that use that system? I am not a Manpad guy.

08-06-11, 04:50 PM

Quote:

I would fly next to her wing and tip the old bat sideways like pilots used to do to the V2 rockets in WW2. No ammunition used that way.

Damn fast planes they must have had in WW2

Platapus · 08-06-11, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Damn fast planes they must have had in WW2

Especially when those small tail fins.

08-06-11, 12:13 PM	#1
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,406 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I wonder if modern heat seeking missiles would even lock on to a J3? Especially when you have 10 minutes. That's not a long time, especially when some of that time will be spent evaluating the thread and deploying defenses. Imagine a J3 diving with the engine off how would you shoot it down? Would a stinger type weapon be able to lock on to a stopped J3 engine? Small arms fire is probably not going to do it. You can poke a lot of holes in a J3 and unless you hit the main wing beam it might keep on its ballistic course. I suppose a 20 mm round on the engine or the explosive payload would take care of it, but how hard would that be to accomplish? I hope the USSS has already figured this out. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-06-11, 01:08 PM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,406 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	It is important to recognize that this was not some prohibited zone in the middle of nowhere. This was centered on O'hare Airport, which gets a little busy at times. O'hare is the third busiest airport in the world. What was she doing flying within 30 miles of O'Hare without her radio on? Even if it is not required due to airspace designations for that area/altitude, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to have it on? Besides, part of the Private Pilot's education is non-radio air intercepts. When these F-16's intercepted her, they did it in an specific manner that communicates their intention. She must have a pretty high self image if she thinks that F-16's would fly close to her just to admire her and her aircraft. Planes don't do that, they maintain separation, especially military jets and civilian props. I think this lady needs to lose her ticket until she goes through some remedial training. She does not seem to have the judgment expected of a pilot operating in crowded airspace. Here is a nice FAA document that describes Temporary Flight Restricted Zones and at the end of the document covers the interception procedure including non-radio communication. http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/not...dia/tfrweb.pdf __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-06-11, 01:11 PM	#6
kraznyi_oktjabr Sea Lord Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Republiken Finland Posts: 1,803 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	Thank you Platabus. I read about Piper J-3 and I understood that its cruise speed is just 65 knots which is about 75 mph (121 km/h). Wouldn't it make sense to fly in low altitude in same direction with highways and try to make aircraft to look like being just one more car speeding in road for radar operator? __________________ You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. - Dr. House

08-06-11, 01:15 PM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,406 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I am sure there are advantages of approaching at all altitudes. Not being an suicidal terrorist, I can't opine on which would be the best. Since the J3 could legally approach until the edge of the TFR zone, I would imagine a higher altitude for the dive speed might be better. The lower altitude makes you more vulnerable to small arms fire and kills the ballistic trajectory option. It is an intriguing problem to consider. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-06-11, 01:32 PM	#9
CaptainMattJ. The Old Man Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sin City Posts: 1,364 Downloads: 55 Uploads: 0	Bofors? Someone is living in the past . Its all about the radar-guided Dual vulcan platform firing 20mm High Explosive rounds. Theres no comparison. Youll be lucky if anyone can find half of your body parts after that thing literally shreds you like paper. not to mention your aircraft, which will look like swiss cheese on a bad day __________________ A popular Government without popular information nor the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives - James Madison

08-06-11, 12:41 PM	#2
mobucks Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 713 Downloads: 209 Uploads: 0	Kinda negligent to turn off your radio in a private plane. Bad airmen(woman)ship if you ask me. Its nice to know at least the people in place for security do their jobs.

08-06-11, 03:17 PM	#12
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	Maybe optical image recognition....

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode