heres my question

[avi]

Since you are all college educated students and fine examples of knowlegable people, please can you explain a paradox to me. Why the hell do F-16s have to escort a passenger plane to a destination when there is a scare on board. If there is a terrorist on board will the fighter jets shoot the plane down? Are people going to jump from the passenger plane to the fighter jet? Are the fighter jet pilots just sent up there to keep the scared people company? Do they attach missles to the fighter jets when they go up to escort the passenger planer. If anyone of you highly educated college students can answer my question, I would be greatly appreciative. I am especially waiting for your reply snazzzzz, but would really appreciate any help.

[SimonTam]

My guess is the presence of the fighter jets gives the people on the ground some control of the situation. If there is a terrorist on board and he forces the plane to head somewhere other than the planned landing point, then the people on the ground can give the order to shoot the passenger jet down. Of course, this would be the decision of last resort. The passengers would be considered unavoidable casualties in the attempt to avoid greater casualties.

[snazzlefrag]

Originally Posted by SimonTam

My guess is the presence of the fighter jets gives the people on the ground some control of the situation. If there is a terrorist on board and he forces the plane to head somewhere other than the planned landing point, then the people on the ground can give the order to shoot the passenger jet down. Of course, this would be the decision of last resort. The passengers would be considered unavoidable casualties in the attempt to avoid greater casualties.

I agree,

If, as happened on 9/11, the plane is heading to a destination that could potentially kill thousands of people, the last resort would be to shoot the plane down before it reached its target.

Other possible reasons could be to reassure the passengers that the authorities ARE aware of the situation, or to intimidate the terrorists into giving up. Neither of these reasons would likely be the primary reason though...and I think the sight of an F-16 would neither comfort the passengers, nor deter the terrorists.

It would be an AWFUL decision to have to make...to shoot down a plane full of people. This is a prime example of Utilitarian Ethics: Do that action which will benefit the greater good.

Of course, your definition of "greater good" will be different depending on whether you are sitting on the plane that is about to be shot down by an F-16, or sitting in the 80-storey building that the plane is about to crash into.

I'm sure it would not be a decision that is made lightly though. As SimonTam says, it would absolutely need to be the decision of last resort.

Like I said, what an AWFUL decision to have to make.

[dhlvrsn]

Standard Operating Procedure.

Make sure nothing happens before reaching populated areas. I think there was a movie called Executive Decission with Kurt Russell and Steven Segal where Kurt tries to stop a plane from being shot down. (And they did hop from plane to plane. Except for Steve, he plunged to earth from a few thousand feet...)

[spazz]

Besides these obvious reasons there are things the jets/aircrafts can actually do to save lives. Since 9/11 especially, there are special tactical groups that use robotic aircraft devices to attach to these planes and dismantle threats. There are also grappling devices used in midair that can help the passengers on the plane take control of the situation.

One of the obvious reasons for grappling onto the plane is you can move the plane in such a way that anyone standing will basically be killed or in critical condition. The people standing will likely be the terrorists so there will be limited causalities.

I was actually involved in one of these groups for a short period time while in the military.

[snazzlefrag]

Originally Posted by spazz

Since 9/11 especially, there are special tactical groups that use robotic aircraft devices to attach to these planes and dismantle threats. There are also grappling devices used in midair that can help the passengers on the plane take control of the situation.

How cool is that? The wonders of modern technology.

I wonder if they could come up with a device that would allow an airman on-board a fighter jet (or even on the ground) to override the controls of the hijacked aeroplane, and pilot it, by remote control, to a safe landing. Such a device might have stopped the 9/11 terrorists in their tracks.

[Urbannaja]

Originally Posted by snazzlefrag

How cool is that? The wonders of modern technology.

I wonder if they could come up with a device that would allow an airman on-board a fighter jet (or even on the ground) to override the controls of the hijacked aeroplane, and pilot it, by remote control, to a safe landing. Such a device might have stopped the 9/11 terrorists in their tracks.

Such a device would be ripe for hackers........

[spazz]

Originally Posted by Urbannaja

Such a device would be ripe for hackers........

If it was engineered faulty. But that goes for everything, power grids, nuclear energy, etc. They are constructed with safe guards which provide protection.

[snazzlefrag]

Originally Posted by Urbannaja

Such a device would be ripe for hackers........

Yeah, you are right. Unfortunately, everything is pretty much ripe for hackers these days. Even our very identity can be 'hacked'.

But the fear of being hacked hasn't stopped the military from developing remote control drones, bombs, robots, etc. Our entire military is pretty much computerized nowadays. So I'm sure they could figure out how to deal with that particular threat.

[avi]

I just would have never believed that a fighter plane would shoot down an airliner carrying hundreds of people, but with all your wonderfull explanations its makes sense.
Thanks
Avi