copertopkiller
April 15th 04, 02:43 AM
> wrote in message
...
> Not in any particular order:
Oh my. This is a list of misconceptions about FAA Procedures? Let me have a
look. Net Kook Maxwell Smart claimed the following when attempting to
fulfill a repeated request.
>
> --Bryan, in a thread titled "Re: JDAM BAM! 9/11 Hot DAMN!":
>
> NORAD could already see a good part of America.
>
>
> Which was refuted:
>
> Actually they didn't.
<snicker>
Lame excuses provided by NORAD and other spokesman parroted by yourself.
Whether they were looking outward or inward still doesn't provide any
insight as to the misconceptions of FAA procedures. If you continue making
this claim you will need to provide the actual FAA Procedure that was in
question.
Broken down further for morons: Whether NORAD was looking offshore provides
no insight about alleged FAA Procedural misconceptions. I am tickled you
think so.
By the way, since you are providing a refutation of "NORAD could already see
a good part of America" can you be specific as to what % of America NORAD
could actually see? <snicker>
Can you state where on the map of the USA where NORAD actually lost its
vision? Be sure to include when they are working with FAA radars.
Misconceptions explained: 0-1
>
> "An aircraft that deviates from pre-flight coordinates does constitute
> an emergency and is the main reason an escort or intercept is
> required. Your implying that becuase your thought process isn't
> specifically in written form it is untrue. The following item is why
> you are a foolish shill.
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html"
>
> And the answer to that misconception is:
>
> And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine procedure
> to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course"
<snicker>
You have really helped the misconceptions here. What percentage of these
writen procedure contain in them this "it is routine procedure" It doesn't
matter if it does or not when it was widely reported by people in the know
that this was the case.
Misconceptions explained: 0-2
>
>
> Yet another:
>
> "But we did have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting
> on runways ready to intercept."
>
> Former senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Korean War veteran
> and national security expert, said it would have been "very
> unrealistic" to expect the military to have interceded successfully on
> Tuesday.
>
> "This country is not on a wartime footing," Rudman said. "We don't
> have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways
> in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the
> '70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian
> intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept
> commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and
> makes no sense at all."
Are you suggesting this is a FAA Procedural misconception? Please list the
procedure itself. Furthermore, Rudman would be wrong about not having alert
birds available.
Misconceptions explained: 0-3
>
>
> Yet another:
>
> "It is routine procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from
> course
>
> Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept
> aircraft."
Oh my, there is one of the examples I just made claim about above. There it
is folks. It was a routine action performed by fighter AC.
<snicker>
>
> Response:
>
> Not civilian aircraft flying within the United States, he didn't. In
> fact he specifically denied it.
<snicker>
Well folks it really is time for you to stand up and say I'm not gonna take
it anymore. Your government will not protect you if your on a Commercial
Flight and you have gone off course.
In my best Donald Rumsfeld impression: Why? I can't really tell you. Things
don't always make sense. I suppose sometimes they do protect commercial AC
and then, sometimes they don't. It's a tricky situation these AC that veer
off course.
SNYDER continues...
>
> "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a
> potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled
> commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10
> minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not
> enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for
> NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.
No in fact he didn't deny that they routinely intercept civilian AC. He said
they scramble routinely on what they consider potential threats to and from
any AC. He then made an excuse for these not being intercepted becuase they
were (not threats) normal, scheduled, commercial flights on approved paths
and they only had 10 mins to the 1st attack.
The thing is that they were known to be highjacked, veering off flight paths
and incommunicado. Where is the FAA Procedural misconception you say you
cleared up?
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-4
>
> "This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going
> to have to adjust accordingly," Snyder said."
>
> If they did it routinely, what adjustment was needed?
Another FAA Procedural misconception explained!
Misconceptions explained: 0-5
>
> Yet another:
>
> Hijacked aircraft must be intercepted.
>
> Yet the FAA Regulations state:
>
> " '7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE
>
> The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by
> direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
> Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
> However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort
> aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort
> mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will
> advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of
> the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then
> authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military
> unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through
> the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. "
>
> Escort had to be requested by the FAA. Note the words "When the
> military can provide escort aircraft", which can only mean that it was
> not a requirement that they be provided.
You are a dope. Those words read as "At the time the military can
provide...". It goes onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the
time" between the NMCC and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the
military can provide" as you claim.
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-6
>
> And another:
>
> Positive flight following means that the hijacked aircraft will follow
> the escort aircraft's instructions.
>
> here's a definition of "positive flight following":
> http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/pdf_files/Av_sops_17.pdf.
>
> Positive flight following is the knowledge of the aircraft's position,
> and its condition at all times.
You dope, this is an firefighting service link from Australia. You really
are helping out with these misconceptions.
Misconceptions explained: 0-7
>
> And another:
>
> A scramble doesn't require the birds to be on alert status.
>
> Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, Section 1.3.2
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch1/mil0103.2.html#1-3-2
> "Scramble. Departure of an aircraft training for or for the purpose of
> participating in an air defense mission.
>
> Scramble Order. A command and authorization for flight requiring time,
> of not more than 5 minutes, to become airborne. "
This inclusion makes everything clear. Apparently I was correct in stating
that a scramble doesn't require alert birds after all. Thanks for helping
out with the misconceptions.
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-8
>
> And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:
>
> "Following FAA regulations would have prevented 9/11."
I am sure you enjoy taking a snippet of a larger argument of mine so you can
attempt to spin it. Heres that gist of it:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down and surely sent a message for
future about this act.
"This was a very difficult, difficult proposition," Cheney said. "If we'd
had been able to intercept the planes before they hit the World Trade
Center, would we? And the answer was absolutely yes."
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_3.html
You haven't shown explainedone misconception above even foolishly providing
one of your own while you attempted.
Misconceptions explained: 0-9
> FAA regulations were followed.
> "FAA regulations require NORAD to scramble aircraft in the event of a
> hijacking or an emergency."
>
> There are no such regulations. How can FAA regulations require NORAD
> to do anything?
True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell NORAD to scramble AC. FAA
Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept.
Misconceptions explained: 0-10. I can't give you a score here becuase I
clarified it much better. <snicker>
>
> "Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."
>
> Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?
<snicker> A doctor has a patient that can't breathe because of an
obstruction. The known procedure to ensure a successful resolution would be
to quickly clear this by way of removal or by creating another pathway for
supplying oxygen before the patient suffocates. Following procedures quickly
guarantees a successful outcome.
Using your analogy with the patient who had an obstruction would be true if
the patient had already expired by suffocation. Therefore the above stated
procedures do not guarantee a successful outcome. If the patient had already
expired the only cutting would be performed by a coroner.
I'll repeat again:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.
Misconceptions explained: 0-11.
Can't give you a score here either, moron. When listing misconceptions about
FAA Procedures you need to incorporate the actual procedure to be remotely
successful.
>
> "The pilots of the interceptor aircraft would've or should've taken it
> on themselves to shoot down the hijacked airliners."
I wish you would have supplied the full exchange of how it got to this point
moron. What FAA Procedural Misconception is this clearing up? As usual you
throw quite a bit of crap up and shriek.
Misconceptions explained: 0-12.
Can't give you a score here either, moron. When listing misconceptions about
FAA Procedures you need to incorporate the actual procedure to be remotely
successful.
>
> Which is just nonsense.
Who had taken charge? It would be simple to make a very good argument that
since nobody was apparently protecting American Civilians that were
indirectly involved in this attack (not on the HJ'ed AC) and after the
previous incidents that day it was the correct thing to do. It could always
be covered up for all you cock gurglars with a wink and nod.
> The list can go on and on.
>
> I summed it all up in a post on 5/20/2003. It's in Google, it can be
> retrieved:
There has been no list here or posted anywhere else that I've seen that you
or anybody else has provided about FAA Procedures misconceptions.
>
> Here, I'll spell it out for you.
> 1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
> were not required on 9/11.
When you read Section 7-1-1 as a complete moron yes. As already explained
above those words read as "At the time the military can provide". It goes
onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between the NMCC
and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can provide"
as you claim.
Misconceptions explained: 0-12
> b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
> by military aircraft.
Your refute: And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine
procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course". Seems you
are confused about what you are clearing up and are yourself experiencing a
misconception, again.
Misconceptions explained: 0-13. you sneaky *******. You posted this twice to
pad your list. Weren't you told it is about quality and not content?
> c. Interception in these cases, when done, were to accomplish
> three things:
> -Positive flight following - meaning the military pilots were
> to maintain visual contact with the target.
> -Report unusual observances - Pretty self explanatory.
> -Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency - Also pretty
> self explanatory.
> 2. Procedures were followed on 9/11. The ATC controllers determined
> that there was a hijacking, advised the FAA Hijack Controller, who
> notified NORAD and requested a military escort. NORAD made the
> decision to dispatch military aircraft. Aircraft were ordered aloft
> from the nearest alert bases (Otis and subsequently, Langley). And as
> you have pointed out, this was a "routine" event.
Interesting. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6
Clearly states after a AC is Highjacked supervisory personnel should be
contacted immediately yet the FAA highjack coordinator, the ultimate
supervisory personnel for this situation wasn't. What was the amount of time
that passed before doing so?
Furthermore, since transponders were turned off the positive flight
following objective was not going to be able to be completed with another
civilian AC that had it's own flight path and schedule to follow which also
lacked the needed manuverabiltiy to get a visual of the incominicato
highjacked AC without putting those passangers at risk. Therefore a
intercept was even needed for all these symptoms minus the "determined or
confirmed highjack".
Misconceptions explained: 0-14? I've lost count. <snicker
With the FAA being repeatedly told of possible highjackings and now having a
confirmed one on its hands under the previously stated circumstances make
your only argument or misconception explanation which if I recollect
correctly has involved d. (if aircraft are dispatched to escort...) invalid
at best. This is not following FAA Procedures nor is it a misconception.
> 3. Even if those aircraft had made it to New York City before the
> planes hit the WTC, there was no reasonable action that they could
> have taken, given the information and the orders that the pilots had
> available to them, that would have prevented the crashes into the WTC.
This is true, moron. But as I mentioned somewhere else in these threads the
Highjacked AC couldn't just appear over NYC from over Massachusetts in a
blink of an eye. There was time for it to be intercepted if procedures were
followed as I just explained above. Then and only then the remaining
intercept procedures that tell the intercepted AC that it has been just
that, intercepted, could be performed and show that the AC was in fact very
hostile as it screamed towards a very populated area which raised more
safety concerns.
If orders were not followed by the intercepted AC at this point it could
have been downed over a less populated area. I refer you back to Dick "I'm a
tough *******" Cheney"s statement earlier in this post. I understand that
panty wearing ****s like yourself couldn't make the tough decision to down
it. Let one Highjacked AC do what it wants over American Airspace and you
bring future trouble into the equation.
Misconceptions explained: 0-15? I've lost count.
Im sorry, but I cannot give you credit for this either. You have not
mentioned a FAA Procedure and you cannot show misconceptions of procedures
without actualy using it in an argument.
...
> Not in any particular order:
Oh my. This is a list of misconceptions about FAA Procedures? Let me have a
look. Net Kook Maxwell Smart claimed the following when attempting to
fulfill a repeated request.
>
> --Bryan, in a thread titled "Re: JDAM BAM! 9/11 Hot DAMN!":
>
> NORAD could already see a good part of America.
>
>
> Which was refuted:
>
> Actually they didn't.
<snicker>
Lame excuses provided by NORAD and other spokesman parroted by yourself.
Whether they were looking outward or inward still doesn't provide any
insight as to the misconceptions of FAA procedures. If you continue making
this claim you will need to provide the actual FAA Procedure that was in
question.
Broken down further for morons: Whether NORAD was looking offshore provides
no insight about alleged FAA Procedural misconceptions. I am tickled you
think so.
By the way, since you are providing a refutation of "NORAD could already see
a good part of America" can you be specific as to what % of America NORAD
could actually see? <snicker>
Can you state where on the map of the USA where NORAD actually lost its
vision? Be sure to include when they are working with FAA radars.
Misconceptions explained: 0-1
>
> "An aircraft that deviates from pre-flight coordinates does constitute
> an emergency and is the main reason an escort or intercept is
> required. Your implying that becuase your thought process isn't
> specifically in written form it is untrue. The following item is why
> you are a foolish shill.
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html"
>
> And the answer to that misconception is:
>
> And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine procedure
> to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course"
<snicker>
You have really helped the misconceptions here. What percentage of these
writen procedure contain in them this "it is routine procedure" It doesn't
matter if it does or not when it was widely reported by people in the know
that this was the case.
Misconceptions explained: 0-2
>
>
> Yet another:
>
> "But we did have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting
> on runways ready to intercept."
>
> Former senator Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire, a Korean War veteran
> and national security expert, said it would have been "very
> unrealistic" to expect the military to have interceded successfully on
> Tuesday.
>
> "This country is not on a wartime footing," Rudman said. "We don't
> have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways
> in this country. We just don't do that anymore. We did back during the
> '70s, the '60s, along the coast, being concerned about Russian
> intrusion, but to expect American fighter aircraft to intercept
> commercial airliners, who knows where, is totally unrealistic and
> makes no sense at all."
Are you suggesting this is a FAA Procedural misconception? Please list the
procedure itself. Furthermore, Rudman would be wrong about not having alert
birds available.
Misconceptions explained: 0-3
>
>
> Yet another:
>
> "It is routine procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from
> course
>
> Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept
> aircraft."
Oh my, there is one of the examples I just made claim about above. There it
is folks. It was a routine action performed by fighter AC.
<snicker>
>
> Response:
>
> Not civilian aircraft flying within the United States, he didn't. In
> fact he specifically denied it.
<snicker>
Well folks it really is time for you to stand up and say I'm not gonna take
it anymore. Your government will not protect you if your on a Commercial
Flight and you have gone off course.
In my best Donald Rumsfeld impression: Why? I can't really tell you. Things
don't always make sense. I suppose sometimes they do protect commercial AC
and then, sometimes they don't. It's a tricky situation these AC that veer
off course.
SNYDER continues...
>
> "We scramble aircraft to respond to any aircraft that we consider a
> potential threat. The hijacked aircraft were normal, scheduled
> commercial aircraft on approved flight plans and we only had 10
> minutes prior notice to the first attack, which unfortunately was not
> enough notice," said Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for
> NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.
No in fact he didn't deny that they routinely intercept civilian AC. He said
they scramble routinely on what they consider potential threats to and from
any AC. He then made an excuse for these not being intercepted becuase they
were (not threats) normal, scheduled, commercial flights on approved paths
and they only had 10 mins to the 1st attack.
The thing is that they were known to be highjacked, veering off flight paths
and incommunicado. Where is the FAA Procedural misconception you say you
cleared up?
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-4
>
> "This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately, and we're just going
> to have to adjust accordingly," Snyder said."
>
> If they did it routinely, what adjustment was needed?
Another FAA Procedural misconception explained!
Misconceptions explained: 0-5
>
> Yet another:
>
> Hijacked aircraft must be intercepted.
>
> Yet the FAA Regulations state:
>
> " '7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE
>
> The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by
> direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC).
> Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
> However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort
> aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort
> mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will
> advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of
> the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then
> authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military
> unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through
> the appropriate SOCC/ROCC. "
>
> Escort had to be requested by the FAA. Note the words "When the
> military can provide escort aircraft", which can only mean that it was
> not a requirement that they be provided.
You are a dope. Those words read as "At the time the military can
provide...". It goes onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the
time" between the NMCC and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the
military can provide" as you claim.
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-6
>
> And another:
>
> Positive flight following means that the hijacked aircraft will follow
> the escort aircraft's instructions.
>
> here's a definition of "positive flight following":
> http://www.bushfire.nsw.gov.au/pdf_files/Av_sops_17.pdf.
>
> Positive flight following is the knowledge of the aircraft's position,
> and its condition at all times.
You dope, this is an firefighting service link from Australia. You really
are helping out with these misconceptions.
Misconceptions explained: 0-7
>
> And another:
>
> A scramble doesn't require the birds to be on alert status.
>
> Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, Section 1.3.2
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch1/mil0103.2.html#1-3-2
> "Scramble. Departure of an aircraft training for or for the purpose of
> participating in an air defense mission.
>
> Scramble Order. A command and authorization for flight requiring time,
> of not more than 5 minutes, to become airborne. "
This inclusion makes everything clear. Apparently I was correct in stating
that a scramble doesn't require alert birds after all. Thanks for helping
out with the misconceptions.
<snicker>
Misconceptions explained: 0-8
>
> And some of his all time greatest misconceptions:
>
> "Following FAA regulations would have prevented 9/11."
I am sure you enjoy taking a snippet of a larger argument of mine so you can
attempt to spin it. Heres that gist of it:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down and surely sent a message for
future about this act.
"This was a very difficult, difficult proposition," Cheney said. "If we'd
had been able to intercept the planes before they hit the World Trade
Center, would we? And the answer was absolutely yes."
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/DailyNews/sept11_moments_3.html
You haven't shown explainedone misconception above even foolishly providing
one of your own while you attempted.
Misconceptions explained: 0-9
> FAA regulations were followed.
> "FAA regulations require NORAD to scramble aircraft in the event of a
> hijacking or an emergency."
>
> There are no such regulations. How can FAA regulations require NORAD
> to do anything?
True: FAA regulations do not specifically tell NORAD to scramble AC. FAA
Procedures explain what duties NORAD are during the intercept.
Misconceptions explained: 0-10. I can't give you a score here becuase I
clarified it much better. <snicker>
>
> "Following procedures guarantees a successful outcome."
>
> Wouldn't doctors like this to be true?
<snicker> A doctor has a patient that can't breathe because of an
obstruction. The known procedure to ensure a successful resolution would be
to quickly clear this by way of removal or by creating another pathway for
supplying oxygen before the patient suffocates. Following procedures quickly
guarantees a successful outcome.
Using your analogy with the patient who had an obstruction would be true if
the patient had already expired by suffocation. Therefore the above stated
procedures do not guarantee a successful outcome. If the patient had already
expired the only cutting would be performed by a coroner.
I'll repeat again:
If AC aren't intercepted then they cannot possibly take charge of the
situation by attempting to divert the errent AC to a place deemed suitable
or safer by the USG. If the "evil doers" thought that they could do whatever
they wanted they could have been shot down.
Misconceptions explained: 0-11.
Can't give you a score here either, moron. When listing misconceptions about
FAA Procedures you need to incorporate the actual procedure to be remotely
successful.
>
> "The pilots of the interceptor aircraft would've or should've taken it
> on themselves to shoot down the hijacked airliners."
I wish you would have supplied the full exchange of how it got to this point
moron. What FAA Procedural Misconception is this clearing up? As usual you
throw quite a bit of crap up and shriek.
Misconceptions explained: 0-12.
Can't give you a score here either, moron. When listing misconceptions about
FAA Procedures you need to incorporate the actual procedure to be remotely
successful.
>
> Which is just nonsense.
Who had taken charge? It would be simple to make a very good argument that
since nobody was apparently protecting American Civilians that were
indirectly involved in this attack (not on the HJ'ed AC) and after the
previous incidents that day it was the correct thing to do. It could always
be covered up for all you cock gurglars with a wink and nod.
> The list can go on and on.
>
> I summed it all up in a post on 5/20/2003. It's in Google, it can be
> retrieved:
There has been no list here or posted anywhere else that I've seen that you
or anybody else has provided about FAA Procedures misconceptions.
>
> Here, I'll spell it out for you.
> 1.a. Intercepts by military aircraft of hijacked civilian airliners
> were not required on 9/11.
When you read Section 7-1-1 as a complete moron yes. As already explained
above those words read as "At the time the military can provide". It goes
onto explain the procedures that will happen "at the time" between the NMCC
and other party's involved. It does not mean "If the military can provide"
as you claim.
Misconceptions explained: 0-12
> b. Emergencies did not require the intercept of civilian airliners
> by military aircraft.
Your refute: And NO WHERE in that regulation does it say "It is routine
procedure to scramble fighters when planes deviate from course". Seems you
are confused about what you are clearing up and are yourself experiencing a
misconception, again.
Misconceptions explained: 0-13. you sneaky *******. You posted this twice to
pad your list. Weren't you told it is about quality and not content?
> c. Interception in these cases, when done, were to accomplish
> three things:
> -Positive flight following - meaning the military pilots were
> to maintain visual contact with the target.
> -Report unusual observances - Pretty self explanatory.
> -Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency - Also pretty
> self explanatory.
> 2. Procedures were followed on 9/11. The ATC controllers determined
> that there was a hijacking, advised the FAA Hijack Controller, who
> notified NORAD and requested a military escort. NORAD made the
> decision to dispatch military aircraft. Aircraft were ordered aloft
> from the nearest alert bases (Otis and subsequently, Langley). And as
> you have pointed out, this was a "routine" event.
Interesting. http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-6
Clearly states after a AC is Highjacked supervisory personnel should be
contacted immediately yet the FAA highjack coordinator, the ultimate
supervisory personnel for this situation wasn't. What was the amount of time
that passed before doing so?
Furthermore, since transponders were turned off the positive flight
following objective was not going to be able to be completed with another
civilian AC that had it's own flight path and schedule to follow which also
lacked the needed manuverabiltiy to get a visual of the incominicato
highjacked AC without putting those passangers at risk. Therefore a
intercept was even needed for all these symptoms minus the "determined or
confirmed highjack".
Misconceptions explained: 0-14? I've lost count. <snicker
With the FAA being repeatedly told of possible highjackings and now having a
confirmed one on its hands under the previously stated circumstances make
your only argument or misconception explanation which if I recollect
correctly has involved d. (if aircraft are dispatched to escort...) invalid
at best. This is not following FAA Procedures nor is it a misconception.
> 3. Even if those aircraft had made it to New York City before the
> planes hit the WTC, there was no reasonable action that they could
> have taken, given the information and the orders that the pilots had
> available to them, that would have prevented the crashes into the WTC.
This is true, moron. But as I mentioned somewhere else in these threads the
Highjacked AC couldn't just appear over NYC from over Massachusetts in a
blink of an eye. There was time for it to be intercepted if procedures were
followed as I just explained above. Then and only then the remaining
intercept procedures that tell the intercepted AC that it has been just
that, intercepted, could be performed and show that the AC was in fact very
hostile as it screamed towards a very populated area which raised more
safety concerns.
If orders were not followed by the intercepted AC at this point it could
have been downed over a less populated area. I refer you back to Dick "I'm a
tough *******" Cheney"s statement earlier in this post. I understand that
panty wearing ****s like yourself couldn't make the tough decision to down
it. Let one Highjacked AC do what it wants over American Airspace and you
bring future trouble into the equation.
Misconceptions explained: 0-15? I've lost count.
Im sorry, but I cannot give you credit for this either. You have not
mentioned a FAA Procedure and you cannot show misconceptions of procedures
without actualy using it in an argument.