Technical (aviation) question about 9/11
 

Firstly, I apologise if anyone is offended by my question. It's asked as a technical query and the last thing I would wish is it to upset anyone. If you lost anyone on Sept 11, perhaps this thread is best ignored.

If we could keep this thread free of PARF psychosis too, that would be nice.

My understanding is that the Fighters scrambled to pursue Flight 93 were armed only with canon. Assuming that the flight hadn't crashed and the Fighters were ordered to shoot it down, how is that done? I can see how crippling a commercial liner would be easy, but to bring it down quickly with minimum distress to the passengers?? Input from the aviation guys appreciated.

Again, this is not meant to aggravate, and certainly not as a troll post. I can appreciate the moral quandary such an order would have presented to the fighter pilots, I'm trying to understand the technical side.

Thanks guys. I'm sorry for any offence this post may cause, that was not my intent.

Flight 93 was a 757 so it had quadruple redundant hydraulics. The F-16's had 105 rounds each.

Kamikaze: F-16 pilots planned to ram Flight 93 - TODAY News - TODAY.com

Jackson

105 rounds in each engine would have done the trick. Hell, one engine disabled with 210 rounds would have made it impossible to fly given the very basic flying skills of the terrorist at the controls. I've seen fully qualified transport pilots struggle in the simulator when engine-out flying.

A couple of rounds would have torn open the fuselage and depressurized the cabin - lots of noise, "fog", etc. and loss of consciousness by all within seconds. TUC at altitude is under 15 seconds. Would have been scary for those seconds but after that, likely nobody remembers anything. Also unlikely the terrorists can don a mask properly in time and also fall asleep, plane continues on autopilot (if enabled, unlikely) or augers in a few moments later.

I too do not wish to offend but, unless you are in law enforcement/military, why would you ask such a question her?

what ifs? You don't have to be leo, or military to let your mind wander....

There seems to be a fair amount of technical aviation knowledge on this board, and (PARF aside) the general ethos seems to be genuine answers to genuine questions.
Perhaps more knowledge would be available on a specialist aviation board like PPRUNE, but this could be interprepted as a tactless question and asking it on a board where I have over a thousand posts struck me as more appropriate than somewhere with this sort of question being my first post. (At the end of the day, people can review my other posts here and decide whether I am the sort of guy they think deserves an answer.)

The question itself arose from a discussion I had around the 10th Anniversary about the horrific decision the fighter pilots were almost asked to make. The technical considerations arose from the discussion of the moral ones. I delayed posting too close to the Anniversary out of respect.

I know that the question may appear to ask for "suspicious" information, but really, it's like asking me how to re-open a chest in ICU. I may tell you the theory, but I know you'll never have the chance to do it.

If memory serves me right, they were flying low, depressurisation might not have been as eventfull as you think.


Either way, I doubt there is any kind of way that the shooting down of a 747 with passengers would not have caused at least several moments , or minutes of horror for some..
I doubt as quick as "seconds". Not even if the fighterjets had missiles on board...
No AA or SAM Missile is capable of making the entire 747 cabin explode in one go, not even the big AIM54 that the F-14 carried.

And even if there was massive depressurization , if the on board systems for emergency oxygen aren't taken out, some might survive the way down with the Oxygen mask that drops down..

Either way, if i were the pilot, trying to take down an 747 with limited rounds.
I think i'de aim for the wing root... Plenty of fuel there, and 105 rounds of 20mm explosive and incendiary rounds in that area would make short work of the wing and the explosion would do the rest.

That or the horizontal stab.

I'm just glad the pilots didn't have to make that decision and it was completely out of their hands.

The war against terror began on that flight and the people that fought back are heroes in the truest sense of the word.

As far as were they should aim. I'm guessing they would have rehearsed for such a scenario.
IMO... There would be a formal US military assessment of each commercial air craft and were they should aim to bring it down.
These are not hardened military planes. The fuel tanks seems the most logical place to me.

ONLY a 105 rounds of 20 MIKE MIKE at a lumbering airliner. Less than half that could bring that aircraft down. Couple of short brust passes too the cockpit would end the matter.

But how many migratory geese would it take? ...not trying to get PARFY knowing that those would be Canadian geese. :cool:

I do not recall where I read/saw this (so I can't confirm the source) but my understanding was that they were to shoot and then fly into the planes to take them down. One way ticket.

(again - don't recall the source).

angela

as an FYI, it was a 757.

follow his link.

We spent hundreds of billions of dollars a year on defense and nobody gave two thoughts about actually defending our country.

Nice job!

Pattsle, good point. The 911 was one of those paradigm moments where it was realized that all our defenses pointed outward, including all the radar systems that guard the coasts, etc. Air Force had really no system covering the US, except for the ATC system and the two were not compatible.
Also, remember that this country was at peace, the cold war was over, the Democratic Congress had early extracted the "peace dividend" out of the military to use for social purposes. This had diminished military readiness (reduced navy, air force, bases etc) and intelligence capacity by releasing most of the CIA type agents and using satellites, etc. to save even more money (yes, this is all in the record). We didn't have many arabic speakers in the CIA at the time. These decisions were of course based on the fact we were at peace and threats were managable. So under those facts. it is clear that fully armed aircraft in Washington DC, well withing the continental US, were not necessary. What was the threat? If the nuclear option was used against DC, which is what we always expected, what good is an F16 with missiles?
We went to war status literally overnight. It is certainly easy to criticise those directing the government back then from today's perspective. Seems pretty obvious now, right?

For some reason I think these guys had more than "very basic skills".

I read somewhere that they knew how to use VOR's :eek:

that's no big deal, even I know how to use VOR's.
I've known how that works since MS flightsimulator 2.0.
It ain't rocket science.


Look on map, pick a VOR Station in the general vincinity
set VOR 1 to that frequency
look on map, pick VOR station 2
set VOR 2 to that frequency

Check VOR 1 and 2 for the respective angle and draw a line on the map from station 1 & 2 where the 2 lines meet, that's where you are at that time.

http://www.aero-news.net/images/cont...ator-0203b.jpg

childs play really ( and i was still a child when FS2 was out)..
I think the hardest part would be finding the right map when you arrive on the plane, digging through the paperwork to find it. And the second hardest part would be finding where the VOR's are located on the airliner..Unless you had time in the sim to figure that out ...