How could intercepting F-16s harm a hijacked commercial flight?

Question

I mean, wouldn't the hijackers simply crash the plane and still achieve their objectives? What if the hijackers have a trained pilot who refuses to obey any intercepting planes' instructions and fly out to anywhere they like?

What exactly is the theory behind it anyway?

Answer 1

First, hopefully the intercept would be over deep water. No the pilot would probably be dead for refusing to go along with the terrorist. Second the terrorist don't want to just blow up the airplane ,they want to do it over heavy populations. Third IF told to do so the pilots would fire. they know that the lives they are taking are already lost, they are saving many more lives in the ground. It's a lousy job but the pilots of the air force know it's a job the have to do even if it ruins the rest of their lives. AND they will do it without hesitation

Answer 2

If the pilot of the hijacked flight were to disobey the order then they would be given a certain amount of time to comply (maybe a minute, maybe 10, it depends on where they are). Once the time has expired then they will be shot down. This is why an intercepting F-16 will make an intercept point that is not around a populated area.

Answer 3

The F-16s are there in the event that the pilot or terrorists refuse to comply. The pilots shoot the plane down before it reaches a target of value. That way only the plane is destroyed, and not anything else. They would only fire as a last resort.

So if a plane is hijacked and headed for the East Coast, the US Air Force will send up fighter escourts and order the plane to divert to a specific airfield. If the pilots refuse to comply and head towards D.C., for example, the pilots will try to get the hijackers to comply for as long as they can. At the last instant, they will shoot down the airliner, to avoid other potential casualties.

Answer 4

The NORAD commander would be responsible for the command to take out the commercial airliner if it was viewed as a threat to targets on the ground. Sidewinder missiles wouldn't leave too much of the plane and its passengers...

Two f-16s out of Elmendorf AFB nearly took down a Korean airliner back in '01 when they were transmitting a code that they were being hi-jacked. The only reason they weren't taken out was the pilots cooperation in obeying commands to divert from Anchorage to a landing site in Canada.

Answer 5

A hijacked plane couldn't do much damage if it crashed into some field in a rural area, or into a body of water. The whole point of intercepting hijacked aircraft is to force them to follow the intercepting planes to a secure airport. If they don't, and they're approaching an inhabited area, then the fighters would shoot it down while it is still in an uninhabited area, where it (hopefully) wouldn't do as much damage.

Answer 6

If a plane is hijacked and it appears it will be used as a weapon to harm other people on the ground the military will shoot down the airliner sacrificing the occupants to prevent further death.
It is assumed that once hijacked the passengers are essentially doomed to death. The only choices left to the military is to allow or not allow the airliner to be used as a weapon.

Answer 7

Dude your not that dense are you? If the plane does anything that maybe considered a threat, the F-16's job is to put a couple of Sidewinders in the thing and blow it to kingdom come. The theory is the save us folks on the ground. Not the SOL folks on the plane. Ever watch the Movie "Executive Decision?"

Answer 8

I believe the intercepting jets would trail the jet until it became a threat to a target on the ground...once that happens I believe they would correctly order that jetliner to be shot down. Common sense dictates that just because the people on the plane are going to die...because they are going to die anyway with a fanatic at the helm...doesn't mean we should allow them to kill more innocent people on the ground.

Answer 9

look, I hate what's occurring interior the international, threats and violations of peace everywhere. no one takes a principled stance presently, it relatively is a shame. the international could desire to settle for that Iran has achieved no longer something incorrect, In "legal" words Iran has a suitable to pursue civilian nuclear potential, they seem to be a signatory to the NPT, which factors them the superb of proliferation, they are additionally allowing UN inspections to their web content, a contemporary checklist by the UN inspection team advise that Iran isn't proliferating for weapons. I worry incompetence, I worry blow decrease back and that i worry the unknown. do no longer provoke Iran, for the consequence can doubtlessly be disastrous for each man or woman. greater Oil costs, greater casualties, harmless demise, plus the threat of spreading the warfare to different areas, alongside with radiation spreading for the time of Iran, India and someplace else.

Answer 10

To add to what don already said..

they could have a real close look inside
it is possible to hit a commercial plane so it can land, but has to way short of any intended target