Is shooting down a civilian plane legitimate?

[nigel99 475]

There's lots of planes that are currently "escorted" by fighters because of the threat of terrorism - the main users of this philosophy being the USA and France.

The clear understanding is that these flights are high risk (e.g. the flight between Washington DC & London has had escorts a few times now) and should a hi-jacking take place the fighters would be authorised to shoot the plane down... Would this be a declaration of war on the host country? Would the USA accept France downing an American airliner?

I would expect a full court trial in public (not the usual for security reasons the evidence can't be released...) if the USA did it to a British flight...

Lastly in such a situation does anybody know whether your typical Warsaw convention /life insurance covers you? I fly to Washington alot from London and it is a genuine concern since this flight appears to be one of the highest profile targets?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[newsstand 0]

Clearly if the plane fails to stay on its path and ignores orders from the military aircraft it would become a target and any country would have a hard time arguing about it.

Part of what the escort does is form a deterent to any hijacker on board who would then know that in the current environment he/she is not going to get away with anything other than downing the aircraft it self which would not have the intended shock value these days.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Is shooting down a civilian plane legitimate?

Yes. It's allowed by the military rules of most nations. It would not be legal under civilian law but those take a back seat under 9/11 circumstances.

Quote

Would this be a declaration of war on the host country?

No, although it could probably be used as such if the "victim" country really wanted to go to war against the other. As I said, most nations acknowledge the circumstances in thier military doctorine so this would simply be accepted as a nessasery evil.

Quote

Lastly in such a situation does anybody know whether your typical Warsaw convention /life insurance covers you?

Maybe - you'd have to check your insurance docs. Many exclude acts of terrorism. Many don't. Many exclude it in certain geographical areas. If war was declaired after the event (for example if it was state sponsored terrorism) you may have significant dificulties as virtually every policy excludes acts of war.

The Warsaw convention limits the liability of airlines tio $75,000 except in the case of willful misconduct. In the locaby case, Pan Am was held to have had a willful disrigard for the passengers lives when its poor security allowed the bomb on board. This would depend on the individual circumstances of the terrorist act though.

Remember the greatest risk is on the outbound leg shortly after takeoff. That is when the plane is carrying most fule and is most effective as a bomb. Inbound the plane would be running dry and far less effective.

There is a school of thought which suggests the twin towers would have survived a hit from dry planes as it was only the intense fire from all that Jet-A that melted the steel structure of the building.

If you really want to read up on the legalities his this site: http://www.solent.ac.uk/law/public.html

[crozby 0]

Do airlines offer discounted tickets on 'escorted' flights given the slightly lower chance of reaching ones destination in one piece?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Do airlines offer discounted tickets on 'escorted' flights given the slightly lower chance of reaching ones destination in one piece?

I'd want a discount on the NON escorted flight, given the slightly lower chance of reaching ones destination.

If a terrorist is gonna crash you into a big building, it hardly matters if you're shot down first... either way you're a gonner. Surely the fighter can only serve as a deterrent.

[nigel99 475]

I don't know but flying the London/Washington route circa once a month - it is probably the safest flight in the world - the last few times people have been given a thorough going over especially when leaving Washington (seperate secure area AFTER the departure gate where everyone is "scanned" using the magic wand and they freak out about the rivets that are built into your jeans...) It is also the most likely flight to be delayed/cancelled leaving the UK.

The escort only joins the airline for the final stage of the flight (I believe) and is the result of an airborne development and therefore not known in advance.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Would this be a declaration of war on the host country? Would the USA accept France downing an American airliner?"

Not necessarily war, but a huge diplomatic incident.
The Russians shot down Korean KAL 007 (Anchorage to Seoul) in 1983. No war.

The USS Vincennes brought down an Iranian A300 Airbus flight 655, in July 1988 again, no war, but very delicate.

I doubt if the USA ould be overly chuffed if France brought down an airliner, or vice versa. I guess a lot would depend on the circumstances, and the diplomatic relationships at the time.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[crozby 0]

Do you think escorting is there to protect the people on the plane? I think they will be sacraficed at the first hint of a problem, particularly after the slow response during 9/11.

And on top of that there's the increased chance of being accidentaly blown out of the sky due to a friendly fire incident.

I'd take un-escorted every time if given the choice.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Do you think escorting is there to protect the people on the plane?

That's why we should allow pilots to carry, and give them a real door. Let the door protect the pilots, and the pilots protect the plane. Then, if it really comes down to it, let the fighters protect the rest of us from the plane.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Do you think escorting is there to protect the people on the plane?

Absolutely not. They're there to protect the far more numerous people on the ground and or loss of national monuments. I just don't see that there is a greater risk of dieing just because there is a fighter close by.

Escorting is a long way from causing a friendly fire incident. You gotta have a jumbo doing something odd and orders from base, presumably confirmed by code key. That's before you even arm you're weapons system. Besides, if there's any time, your just as likely to get shot at by some scrambled fighters if you havent already got an escort. I don't think blue on blue is an issue.

The only question in my mind is would the terrorist prefer to plow a plane into, for example, the houses of parliament, or would they want to cause an international incident by getting plane shot down. I don't know which they'd choose. Getting shot down is a possability anyway.

Do you seriously think you are far more likely to die on a flight with an escort than one without?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you think escorting is there to protect the people on the plane?

That's why we should allow pilots to carry, and give them a real door. Let the door protect the pilots, and the pilots protect the plane. Then, if it really comes down to it, let the fighters protect the rest of us from the plane.

I thought most flight in the USA had bullet proof doors for the pilots?

[leroydb 0]

if i was on said plane, i hope i would be over/ near land so i could find a way to jump if possible before the plane is shot down

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

That's why we should allow pilots to carry

Great! Now the terrorists don't have to worry about sneaking weapons on board...they'll be on the plane for them. Good plan, skippy.

Oh, and I don't know what's scarier...terrorists with weapons or pilots. Have you seen some of these freaks of nature recently? Do you really want you and your families lives in the hands of these goofy-ass dim-wits in a terrorist situation? I'd feel more comfortable arming the 90 year old granny next to me knitting socks for her cat back home than trusting these over-paid dumb-asses with firearms.

Forty-two

[BANANAFINGER 0]

Armed bods on planes can work as a deterrent, works best if they arent identified though (probably not the pilot then...). El Al certainly used to have a reputation as the most unlikely to be hijacked airline due to their security measures (ever moaned about the length of time it takes to clear security now? try flying El Al, more questions than you can shake a pointy stick at, if you were allowed anywhere near the gate with one) and Skymarshalls; theres one story going back to the 70's of an attempted hijack that ended with the pilot sticking the plane in a negative G dive, during which the hijackers were unceremoniously offed by persons last seen exiting the plane on the apron at Heathrow and vanishing over the fence. Makes people think twice about doing it again.

Experience is a series of non-fatal errors.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Oh, and I don't know what's scarier...terrorists with weapons or pilots.

This is the most perplexingly stupid sentence I've ever read on DZ com . . .

Quote

Have you seen some of these freaks of nature recently? Do you really want you and your families lives in the hands of these goofy-ass dim-wits in a terrorist situation? I'd feel more comfortable arming the 90 year old granny next to me knitting socks for her cat back home than trusting these over-paid dumb-asses with firearms.

. . . next to these, I mean.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Kennedy 0]

Tuna, your life is already in the pilot's hands when you fly.

Personally, I'd feel better if every cop (off duty and official business) were allowed to carry onto planes. Plus the pilots. Plus the FAMs (if they ever get enough to put them on flights regularly).

Hell, sonebody asked my why I should trust select groups over everyone with a CCW (CHL, PP, whatever), and you know what? I didn't have a good answer.

Maybe we should let granny carry onboard if she wants to and has a card. She probably wouldn't be knitting though. The idjits in red coats won't let you bring the needle things into the terminal.


ps - all that comes after installing some serious doors from cabin to cockpits.

pps - I don't really expect anyone to try another 9/11 style hijacking attempt. Really, wouldn't every guy on that plane be tackling the scumbag and beating the shit out of him? Just not going to happen again. Time to look for places it hasn't happened.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Really, wouldn't every guy on that plane be tackling the scumbag and beating the shit out of him?

You are correct. Using planes in that manner would most likely never happen again. The entire plane would be on these guys.

Forty-two

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Tuna, your life is already in the pilot's hands when you fly.

That is correct.

And they can barely do that anymore. Let's not push their mental capabilities by giving them a responsibility such as weapons in the cockpit. These aren't the brightest humans ever produced.

Forty-two

[Kennedy 0]

Planes don't bother me. I'm scared of the mass shipping ports and all those metal cargo containers going through them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tunaplanet 0]

Amen. And let's not forget all the other means they could terrorize the US.....

- Suicide bombings in schools

- Ebola

- Botulism

- Poison water supplies

- Dirty bombs

And there are many others I won't list. It's impossible to defend against everything.

Do whatever you have to...just don't give the pilots anymore responsibility

Forty-two

[jakee 1,489]

Jeez mate, what have you got against airline pilots, did ya fail the entrance exam or something?

Besides, a fair amount of airline pilots are ex military, would you trust them to handle high pressure situations?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tunaplanet 0]

No, I would not trust pilots to handle any high-pressure situation pertaining to a hostage/terrorist takeover.

There are many better options we can utilize instead of arming the pilots.

Forty-two

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

No, I would not trust pilots to handle any high-pressure situation pertaining to a hostage/terrorist takeover.

I don't think anyone has suggested that pilots should handle a hostage/terrorist situation. Their job is to fly the plane. The only reason a pilot should be armed in flight, is as a last line of defense to kill the bad guy when he breaches the flight deck door, period. I don't have a problem with it. Besides, after the pilot squawks 7500 (Hijacking) on the transponder, he will be joined by F-16's in short order. If he deviates from his flight plan......game over. If he does not respond to the commands of the F-16's......game over.

In general, I think authorizing the proper training and arming of pilots in flight and on the flight deck only makes sense from a deterrence standpoint, and as a quasi force multiplier.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

only makes sense from a deterrence standpoint

Well thank God the people that actually make those decisions don't agree with you.

Forty-two

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

No, I would not trust pilots to handle any high-pressure situation pertaining to a hostage/terrorist takeover.

There are many better options we can utilize instead of arming the pilots.

Yeah!
Pilots should not carry guns on board because they are all drunk. I do not want my life in the hands of a bunch of drunks. Guns are very difficult to operate especially when you are wasted. What if the drunken pilot is upset and suicidal; he might shoot himself then who would land the plane?! Issue all passengers guns instead. That would free up military aircraft for more important duty like scraphing low over residential areas looking for illegal pot plants.




www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/armpilot.html