shooting down a jet

[Guest V1]

Isn't this great, all over the news that an FBI agent got someone to sell them a missle, one of 750,000 like missles in the world, to him while he (the FBI) agent was posing as a someone who wanted the shoot down a passenger jet.

I wonder if he had claimed he wanted to shoot a building or neighbourhood or the white house or anyother target it wouldstill be news.

CBC news states that these missles could be used to shoot down passenger jets, well holy crap, they could blow up in your trunk too. This linkage to aviation is BS.

[Guest neo]

Good point. Just because these devices are sophisticated weapons intended to bring down aircraft doesn't mean that we should pay any attention to the threat. I mean think about it... what terrorist is going to risk having a MANPAD (Man Portable Anti-aircraft Device) blow up in the trunk of his Chevy? Terrorists never get comprehensive vehicle insurance, for a start.

And you're right again, if they were planning to use it to blow up the White House, I'm sure it would never have made the news at all.

Just more scaremongering. I recommend sticking our heads in the sand on this one.

neo

[Guest HPT-TOUR]

NOW THAT WAS FUNNY. GOOD ONE

[Guest soarcerer]

Relax! It can't happen in Canada!

Alan Rock & the Liberals have demanded that everyone in Canada register their firearms. (This would include heat seeking rocket-launchers.)

[Guest V1]

Is that sarcasm?

You miss the point then, the only ones in this story planning to blow up anything was the FBI. If they want to try to entice arms dealers to sell them weapons they could just as easily say they were planning to blow up something other than a aviation target and get the same arrests

[Guest neo]

Sarcasm? Let's chalk it up to my twisted sense of humor.

You're absolutely right as far as you take it; there was no conspiracy to use the weapon. There was only someone who was willing and able to provide and ship the weapon into the United States, all the while knowing that the intended use was against a commercial aviation target. That at least, according the FBI source that was quoted in the account I read.

If the account is accurate, it begs a couple of questions. What kind of human being does it take to willingly provide such a device to those who would use it that way? Is there a place in hell hot enough for individuals like that?

And moreover, what are we going to do about it?

Not that V1 was engaging in it of course, but there will be a strong urge amongst those of us in the already battered aviation industry to try to sweep this issue under the rug. After all, the last thing we need is anything that resembles bad news for airlines. But the issue is being thrust upon us whether we like it or not, and I believe it would be a mistake to sound even a tiny bit like we're in denial about the matter. Wouldn't it be better to assertively talk about how we're aware of the problem, that even though we fully realize that a passenger would be more likely to be struck by lightning in his back yard than come under attack from a weapon of this sort, that we're tracking the issue and prepared to do whatever it takes to keep our passengers safe? Or words to that effect?

neo

[Guest M. McRae]

You have to wonder how many others are willing to sell this type of weapon to whoever wants one! If the FBI can find a vendor, I am sure that those who wish to do real harm could also be able to do so. Lets hope that "they" continue to "not want to do so".

[Guest M. McRae]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99157

[Guest V1]

I don't know if your are aware but there is a pshyciatric condition called "passive agressive". you might seek ..... or you could just live the rest of you life with people thinking that you are a **bleep**.

[Guest V1]

''"And you're right again, if they were planning to use it to blow up the White House, I'm sure it would never have made the news at all."

welcome to the age of dis-information. "they" never planned to blow up anything.... get it!@! It did not happen!

[Guest neo]

To paraprase the old joke, I could live the rest of my life with people thinking I'm a **bleep**, or I could be you and remove all doubt about the matter.

I prefer to keep 'em guessing.

neo

[Mitch Cronin]

Forgive me Neo, but how in hell are you gonna keep a straight face while telling anyone you're gonna make sure they're safe against that kind of threat? Are you carrying chaff dispensers now? Flares?

Wouldn't that kind of a matter be better left untouched? Swept under the rug, as it were?

In a nutty world where all kinds of loco's are loose, there's a lot of potential for danger... you do what you can where you can, to keep safe, but the stuff you can't do anything about, you either avoid completely, or say "oh well" and take your chances, depending on the risk.

This FBI fellow may have just made a lot of people frightened about something that not any airline employee, or brass, or airport authority, or police, can do diddley squat about.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest neo]

Hi Mitch,

My understanding, which is strictly layman, is that there is an off-the-shelf system available right now that provides a measure of protection for commercial applications. (Not surprisingly, the Israeli's developed it. I'm sure modern militaries have them, too.)

Sidenote: When the El Al jet was attacked recently in Kenya, the weapons missed. An 'analyst' suggested that maybe sunlight reflecting off the wings of the aircraft fooled the sensors in the rockets. Okay. It's also possible that the aircraft was equiped with some sort of countermeasures, but of course that's not the kind of thing you advertise. I mean, if you were the Israeli's would you be sending your planes unportected to Nairobi, site of some of the world's worst terrorist acts? By the way, the Israeli's were also first to deploy the impenetrable cockpit door, which we're all using now.

There are technological measures which can be employed by airlines, and there are also pro-active measures for which they can lobby. So I don't think it's fair to say that nothing can be done about the threat.

But regardless, my point is that the worst thing we can do is to seem like we're IGNORING the issue. It costs nothing to say all the right things. "We're fully aware of the matter, and although the threat is almost negligible, we're working closely with government agencies to assess the threat and apply all necessary countermeasures... etc, etc."

On the public relations front, which everyone should rightly consider, I suggest that we're better to take our lumps on it right now than to have something interrupt a fragile recovery down the road. Much like the 'big bath' treatment that AC just did with it's huge Q2 loss: put all the bad news in one package, rather than let it come out in dribs and drabs.

neo

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Neo,

Re: "an off-the-shelf system available right now that provides a measure of protection for commercial applications."

My apologies, I was completely unaware that such things existed... I just did a search for "electronic countermeasures for commercial aviation" and instantly found this one from Northrop Grumman: http://www.capitolsource.net/programs/laircm.html

...and this article from Aviation Week: http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20021209/avi_news.htm

...which mentions that system as well as others in use.

The article also does touch on the obvious dilemma of costs and perceptions of danger in admitting such hardware is necessary...

Interesting stuff.... FWIW, IMO, if a million (or two) bucks can buy enough insurance to make the cost to the terrorist not worth taking his chance on success, then it's worth it. But now... before it's standard equipment... what do you tell the folks in the back? Or do we wait 'til theres a smoking hole in the ground someplace before aviation authorities make them mandatory? I've seen other millions spent on other types of prevention, for more "conventional" million-to-one style risks... We probably all have... But will this one be viewed in a more "We don't want to give people the impression they aren't safe." kind of light? Or is the risk real enough? Or does that FBI guy have a brother working for Northrop Grumman?

'tis a wacky world indeed!

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Mitch

[Guest stick man]

Don't know why you're getting so bent out of shape. You're both right;

the agency which procured the weapon did a disservice to a very fragile industry by publicizing the fact that they obtained it with the stated intention of downing an airliner, which, as you say, is completely arbitrary. Certainly the scumbag arms dealer didn't think they were going to use it to tickle kittens and, therefore, was probably thinking to himself, as the agent handed over the cash, "Yeah, do whatever the hell you want with it, pal." So, V1 is right, it's sensationalistic journalism.

However, neo is also correct. The fact that these weapons are easily obtained (although anything is easily obtained if you have the resources of the CIA) should not be ignored. Surely if we can learn anything from 9/11 it's that we have to be vigilant against any and all possible threats. If there is any device or procedure that can be employed in defence of our airplanes and passengers, it should be carefully considered. The negative impact of damaging and innaccurate press is nothing compared to what will happen to our industry should one of these malicious groups succeed in an attack.

This has been an interesting thread (I didn't know about the counter measures available, either, Mitch).

Why lower it to the short angry posts that we already see so much of on this forum?

[Guest neo]

Mitch,

If systems such as those under discussion were deployed, the less said the better in my view. It would be like the thousands of other things airlines do that enhance safety which are never brought to the public's attention. Just like you say, some of the things we do are insurance against that one-in-a-million occurence that could have adisastrous consequence. We don't make a point of telling the public about it, but should the public or media raise the issue, we can prove that we've been pro-active about protecting our customers from that risk.

I'd also like to suggest that strong lobbying be done behind the scenes by all aviation-related companies and employee groups to those governments and agencies which design these weapons. No modern weapon of this sort should be produced without some safeguards against the weapon being used by those for whom their use was not intended. For instance, the U.S.A. armed the former Afghan resistance with many Stinger anti-aircraft missiles during their war against the Russians in the '80's. So where did the weapons wind up? In the hands of the Taliban. Oh great!

The guidance system on ANY exported weapon should be have a hard-wired time-limited date. If the U.S. (or Britain, France, Russia or whoever) doesn't provide the code to renew the guidance system, the weapon becomes useless. That way there's less chance these weapons can be passed on or resold for use far beyond the sphere for which it was intended.

Furthermore, these weapons are not designed and built in back rooms in Kinshasa. Our own governments create them and distribute them. Is this proliferation in our best interests? Is everything necessary being done to prevent it in the future?

Best wishes,

neo