[AU] Light plane sparked terror alert

The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...050611557.html

Was reported in the media at the time.

Cheers
Peter Cokley

David Bromage wrote in message
.. .
The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...050611557.html

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:59:14 +1000, "Peter and Susan"
wrote:

Was reported in the media at the time.

Cheers
Peter Cokley

Can you tell us where please?

I don't recall it being discussed here and I can't find anything via
Google either.

Thanks in advance
Vector


David Bromage wrote in message
. ..
The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...050611557.html

Vector wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:59:14 +1000, "Peter and Susan"
wrote:
Was reported in the media at the time.
Cheers
Peter Cokley

Can you tell us where please?
I don't recall it being discussed here and I can't find anything via
Google either.
Thanks in advance
Vector

I read the Courier Mail which is the main paper in QLD and watch the evening
news on TV. I recall this story made the Sth East QLD news [paper?] at the
time. I seem to recall a feature article in the paper [usually mid section
of paper somewhere around the Letters to Editor; not front news section]
about the RAAF activities at the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The event happened in Sth East QLD which is where I live so maybe it didn't
make the NSW or VIC papers at the time. Some of the things I read in the
paper regarding aviation in Sth East QLD don't always get a mention on this
newsgroup.

Cheers
Peter Cokley

commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
that authority.

In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
that authority.

In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
front.

In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...

These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
landed in Red Square....

matt weber wrote:
In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...

Plus speeds are so low that it would be hard to line up a cannot shot.
This was the problem the RAAF had with the pilotless Auster in 1955. The
Auster was going 30mph slower than the stall speed of a Meteor.

Cheers
David

David Bromage wrote:

matt weber wrote:
In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...

Plus speeds are so low that it would be hard to line up a cannot shot.
This was the problem the RAAF had with the pilotless Auster in 1955. The
Auster was going 30mph slower than the stall speed of a Meteor.

Cheers
David

So... maybe they should have stood off a little ways and treated it as a
stationary target.....

Coop

"matt weber" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
that authority.

In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
front.

In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...


IR missiles have no problem in homing in on the heat signature
of a lycoming engine

These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
landed in Red Square....

Which has nothing to do with radar signature, they show quite nicely
on ATC radars let alone military sets, the problem with the Cessna
in Moscow was more political indecision than anything technical

Keith

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"matt weber" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
that authority.

In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
front.

In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...


IR missiles have no problem in homing in on the heat signature
of a lycoming engine

These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
landed in Red Square....

Which has nothing to do with radar signature, they show quite nicely
on ATC radars let alone military sets, the problem with the Cessna
in Moscow was more political indecision than anything technical
They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.

ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
cooperative targets (transponders).