The story of a small plane that recently wandered into prohibited airspace
near the White House:
#e Reuters #e Andrews afb in action #e timeline |
What was the impression intended?
- U.S. Air National Guard fighter jets were scrambled into the air too late from nearby Andrews Air Force Base on Wednesday night to protect the White House from a small plane The whole purpose of this "incident" was just to get out the "fighters arrived too late" angle, again. The lack of fighter response on Sept 11th is one of the key issues being raised now also by the relatives of the WTC victims. |
Arguments:
1. The Cessna pilot knew "In the early eighties, I got a pilot's licence, just private, single engine land. Even back then, my instructor told me that you couldn't buzz the White House or military installations or "you would be forced down". Avionics are more sophisticated now. My flying experience predated civilian GPS technology. The pilot of that little Cessna almost certainly knew where he was even if he was not instrument rated." 2. The Cessna pilot was a professional
3. He was under control
4. To publish the story is a "crime" itself
5. It is all standard - nothing new
|
The procedures itself work in normal order:
as the news revealed: "The officials told Reuters that two F-16 fighters took off 11 minutes after ordered -- well within the 15-minute time period allowed to respond to emergencies -- but did not reach the scene ..." |
As Jared Israel proved, Andrews AFB changed its website to hide
the fact that there are fighters day and night in alarm status (suddenly
on September 12th it was allegedly only training and support squadrons
there).
So we can prove by this Cessna incident that Andrews AFB has fighters for the purpose of intercepting. (Where were they on 911? They did not only come too late - they did not even scramble on 911.) So - allthough the intention of that Cessna incident is obviously to implement a feeling of helplessness and to repeat the "tragic" "failures" and "lapses" of 911 - we can use the revelation which we have black on white now: not only OTIS AFB and Langley AFB, but also ANDREWS has and had interceptors. These guys are so transparent it's not even funny. |
Questions to ask:
1) On 9/11, to put it mildly, the fighter interceptors were late
to the party. But now a Cessna gets a little off course and that pilot
gets an F-16 on him within some minutes.
Why isn't this discrepancy all over the news?
2) It is very strange that this pilot did not get a lot of personal and embarrassing publicity. Who was he who scared the White House? Must he pay a fine and some more for the hours of duty of NORAD, the fighters, or for the time of evacuation?
3) Does anyone have record of the exchange between the tower and the pilot? Was the transponder on?
4) HOW did they obtain now on Andrews AFB the readiness of interceptors "again"? Who changed the orders and equipment? When? Since they had allegedly no interceptors on 911 ...:-))
5) Was there not even one training flight on 9/11?
Jared
Israel asks: The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reported that
it 'suspected' Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked by 8:20 Eastern
Time. (1) So when Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center, of course the FAA
knew this was a terrorist act. Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS
September 16th that the FAA had open lines to the Secret Service as soon
as Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. So the Secret Service was in the
know no later than 8:45 Eastern time. (2)
Flight 77 reached Ohio and turned around, heading back to Washington, DC around 8:55, we are told. At 9:06 the FAA reports that it ordered the air corridor from Cleveland, Ohio, to Washington, D.C. closed to all air traffic. (3) We are told that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon around 9:45 Eastern time. So here's the burning question: why weren't those combat jets which DCANG provided, "in the highest possible state of readiness" - why weren't those planes scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base *before* the Pentagon was hit? |
mit verursacht durch ein System - das es in dieser Form eigentlich gar nicht gibt/ geben dürfte? Zitat LTU: "So haben wir als eine der ersten Fluggesellschaften in Europa sämtliche Maschine mit dem elektronischen Kollisionswarngerät TCAS ausgerüstet. Die Abkürzung TCAS steht für die englische Bezeichnung „Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System“, zu deutsch etwa Verkehrswarn- und Kollisionsverhinderungssystem. Durch TCAS erhalten die Piloten auf einem Bildschirm im Cockpit Informationen über den Luftverkehr im Umkreis von 35km. Andere Flugzeuge und deren Position sind durch grafische Symbole dargestellt. Sollte es zu einer kritischen Annäherung an die eigene Maschine kommen, warnt TCAS die Besatzung und schlägt zugleich das optimale Ausweichmanöver vor. So rechtzeitig, daß keine hektischen Flugmanöver nötig sind und die Passagiere in der Regel von einem solchen Vorfall noch nicht einmal etwas merken. Rund 300.000 DM kostet ein TCAS-Gerät. In den USA ist es schon lange Vorschrift, in Europa soll es erst vom Jahr 2000 an für alle Flugzeuge mit mehr als 15.000 Kilogramm Startgewicht oder 30 Passagiersitzen zur Pflichtausstattung gehören." Quelle "warnt ... und schlägt vor" - keinesfalls Automatismen? Obwohl doch die Systemdaten benutzt werden und es nur ein klitzekleiner Befehl an die computergesteuerten Motoren der Klappen wäre? Sie drücken sich um den Begriff "automatisch" (z.B. "Tagesthemen" am 2.6.) - leider hat die FlugRevue 1/98 da einen Strich durch die Rechnung gemacht: "If TCAS doesn't receive an altitude code, it is not able to give resolution advisories. Evasion maneuvers must then be initiated by the pilot and are not automated. " - Im Normalfall also "automated". Hier die offiziellen Untersuchungsergebnisse TCAS - beide Flugzeuge (also auch die Tupolev 154 - seit 2001) waren mit dem System ausgerüstet. Fehlfunktion? Die Medienmaschine funktioniert wieder ausgezeichnet: a) es kann sich nur um menschliches Versagen handeln b) wenn es ein technisches Versagen gäbe, dann natürlich nur auf Seiten der Tupolev. Boeings versagen nie, Tupolevs immer. c) Fongern von "Cockpit": wenn menschliches Versagen, dann auf allen vier Seiten suchen (2x Besatzungen, 2x Flugleitzentralen) d) Die Automatik des TCAS um Himmels willen nicht diskutieren - daran hat keine Seite ein Interesse ... Überhaupt gibt es keine Automatik dabei, und wenn dann doch nur vertikal, und niemals die Pilotenentscheidung aushebelnd, und niemals zu "global hawk" in Verbindung stehend und für die Herbeiführung des 11. September gänzlich ungeeignet, |