June 3, 2005

GOOD POLICY

False alarm in flight to New York - En route from London, jet lands in Canada as precaution (NBC News and AP, June 3, 2005)

WASHINGTON - Canadian fighter jets intercepted a Virgin Atlantic jet over the Atlantic on Friday after the aircraft emitted a signal indicating a hijacking was in progress. The pilots later said there was no hijacking, and Virgin Atlantic described the incident as a false alarm.

Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Katie Montgomery said that Virgin Atlantic Flight 45 was en route from London’s Heathrow Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, when the aircraft began emitting code 7500, which indicates a hijacking is in progress.

“Communications have been made with the pilots,” Montgomery said. “The pilots are indicating there is no hijack.”

Homeland Security is checking other indicators to confirm the pilots’ information, she said.

As a precaution, the plane landed in Halifax, Canada, and Virgin gave an "all clear" signal. A press conference was expected shortly there.

The jet is carrying 271 passengers and 17 crew.

Who could argue with that decision? All questionable or unidentifiable inbound flying objects get automatically diverted to Canada as a matter of standard operating procedure -- better security for us and it'll give the Canuks a chance to feel strategically important for a few hours.

Posted by John Resnick at June 3, 2005 12:15 PM
Comments

Canadian fighter jets

They have fighter jets? Who'd've guessed?

You're kidding, right? I'll bet next thing you're gonna tell me is they have warships, too.

Posted by: Mike Morley at June 3, 2005 12:57 PM

Yes, and if the plane is carrying anything dangerous it's entirely logical that a country with national health insurance should experience it first.

Posted by: pj at June 3, 2005 12:58 PM

PJ: Indeed. The compound benefits are endless.

Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 1:03 PM

Yes indeed they do. F-18's.

Posted by: Mikey at June 3, 2005 1:45 PM

where was that standard operating procedure on 9/11/01? oh, i forgot. rummy & co. scrapped SOP that morning.

Posted by: lonbud at June 3, 2005 1:48 PM

Ooooh, lonbud plays the conspiracy card! C'mon, boy, go for the gold: tell us all about the mysterious pods on the 767s, the 4,000 Jews who didn't go to work at the WTC that morning, the Mossad involvement, . . . .

Posted by: Mike Morley at June 3, 2005 1:56 PM

lonbud: Good one! It's ALL Bush's fault. Why didn't I think of that? You should do an expose' documentary or write a book -- you'd make MILLIONS!

Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 2:00 PM

C'mon guys, play nice...

Keep it up, and your new troll is going to disappear just like all the other ones who've popped up here.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 3, 2005 2:09 PM

it's a simple question: why did SOP fail on 9/11? bush & co have never addressed it, ever.

i'm not interested in making any case for what you folks here might term a moonbat conspiracy theory, but if you're going to trot out the huzzahs and the booyahs every time SOP thwarts a false alarm you ought to expect some incredulity from the peanut gallery.

it'll be interesting to see how long i remain amused by your inconsistencies, sloppy thinking, sophomoric humor.

Posted by: lonbud at June 3, 2005 2:25 PM

Yeah should be really interesting to see how long we can amuse you. B/c that's what we aim to do?

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at June 3, 2005 2:36 PM

"Where was that standard operating proceedure on 9/11/01?"

Logan Airport, where the ticket clerk thought to himself that Mohammed Atta looked exactly what a terrorist would look like, and then the SOP kicked in and he waved Atta through, because thinking a middle eastern male could have anything to do with terrorism was a bad though and inherently racist.

Posted by: BC Monkey at June 3, 2005 2:43 PM

"Thought", not though. Excuse me.

Posted by: BC Monkey at June 3, 2005 2:46 PM

Sigh. Tell me, lonbud, how exactly was SOP not followed on 9/11? SOP was to do whatever hijackers want to avoid provoking the situation. SOP changed at ~9:20am.

Posted by: b at June 3, 2005 2:50 PM

lonbud: Hindsight inherently tells us we should have known and done more about every disaster recorded. For obvious political reasons, that phenomenon is easily twisted into "we did know more and did nothing in light of it." Its a short and plausible leap especially if you want it to be true in the first place.

I'm not applauding a thwarted false alarm nor extolling the virtues of flawless (followed or not) SOP on 9/11. Im half sarcastically saying potentially terrorist laden aircraft and other missile like objects should all be forced to land, crash or detonate in the territory inhabited by our Kokanee swizzling friends to the north.

Its Friday, bud. Have a beer.

Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 3:05 PM

air force fighter jets were ordered to stand down on 9/11 in contravention of SOP. there was plenty of time for those planes to have been intercepted and blown out of the skies if necessary, and it didn't happen. why?

don't try to blame our failure to stop atta & co. at the goal line on some mythical adherence to government-mandated PC behavior.

you pay security screeners $8.50 an hour and your're not going to recruit a lot of self-starters.

Posted by: lonbud at June 3, 2005 3:12 PM

john r:
i hear you, bro. i'm off to go camping in the redwoods and their ought to be mirth and merriment as well as a few beers around the campfire tonight.

i try and enjoy the redwoods as much as i can before those great american entrepeneurs the fisher family (gap, bannana republic, et al) sell 'em off to their logging subsidiaries.

Posted by: lonbud at June 3, 2005 3:17 PM

lonbud: good for you. I guess I'll be enjoying some beautiful new redwood decking once they do. cheers.

Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 3:26 PM

its no wonder so many leftists commit suicide, with that perpetually gloomy outlook on life. my god man, can't you ever just enjoy something *now* without seeing the futility of life in every spilled glass of milk ? its time to put the bergman movies away, and watch some farrelly brothers fare.

Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 3:49 PM

Geez, lonbud, if you're going to drop in and play leftist troll, can't you at least remember to say something nice about my beloved Canada on a post about Canada? You have no idea the flak I take around here. Did you know we have government healthcare? That we're worldly as all heck and full of compassion? That we're very, very nice. You choose, but c'mon, you can do it.

Posted by: Peter B at June 3, 2005 4:19 PM

Peter,
Canada probably puts the "bud" in "lonbud". I think you must be held partially responsible. :)

Posted by: Patrick H at June 3, 2005 4:28 PM

Peter: It gives me great pleasure to note that, if the future of western civilization ever depends upon a war between NATO and Virgin Atlantic, the Canadian Air Force might well come in handy. If, you know, the war comes soon.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 5:24 PM

Being completely serious for a moment:

1. I knew about the CF-18s; I was just having a little fun.

2. The claim that the USAF deliberately stood down on 9/11 is an absolute lie, and a vicious smear of honorable men and women. Anyone who believes it is out of touch with reality; anyone who spreads the tale knowing it to be false is beyond vile.

3. Up to the morning of 9/11, SOP for dealing with hijackings was to treat them as crimes and hostage situations, back off from immediate action, and negotiate, with the objective of persuading them to release the passengers. The hijackers took advantage of this. We now know what to do, and I think it fair to predict that no one will hijack a planeload of Americans ever again. (I know that if anyone attempts to mess with a plane I'm on, I plan to kill the sonofabitch with my bare hands, pardon the language, OJ. Even if the likes of lonbud is one of the passengers.)

Posted by: Mike Morley at June 3, 2005 5:46 PM

David:

Good, but I trust you understand we'll be on the side of Virgin Atlantic.

Posted by: Peter B at June 3, 2005 6:00 PM

i like peter b. so i refrain from making comments about canada; its bad enough he has to live there :)

Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 6:31 PM

cjm: I wouldn't do it if he weren't such a good sport. Heck, some of my friends are actually Canadians. Really.

Posted by: John Resnick at June 3, 2005 6:56 PM

that's the real shame of what is going on up there -- all the decent people who deserve better.

Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 8:07 PM

Mike, they do have warships. I was sailing in Portsmouth harbor a few years ago when two of them appeared coming in for a visit. Two Corvettes that looked like something out of a British WW2 movie. Really quite thrilling for me to see. I sailed along side and waved to some of the crew standing amidships watching me; they just kept watching me with the Peter Jenning's lidless stare, without lifting a finger. Possibly under orders; or P.O.ed they weren't coming into Boston. I should have had my hat with the crossed American/Canadian flags on at the time. I've since burned it.

Just kidding about the Jennings stare. And by the way I'm suprised to learn Ionbud may be old enough to drink ... legally that is.

Posted by: Genecis at June 3, 2005 9:23 PM

Lonbud is a troll and trashes the USAF/ MASSANG. As a retired MSgt this really hacks me off. The real facts for the intercept on 9/11 is the F-15A Alert A/C where launched from Cape Cod once the FAA got their collective act together and notified NORAD, the F-15s where closing buts till to far away to engage when the second plane hit the south tower. The main question is what happened to the interceptors at Atlantic City? I belive you will find that these went down the tubes as part of the general budget reduction in the wonderful Clinton years.
The incident yesterday is no different than any number of incidents that occur yearly as A/C violate the ADIZ and having NORAD (USAF/ CAF) fighters intercept the intruder.
The difference today as opposed to 20 years ago is the lack of active duty dedicated USAF interceptor squadrons. Back in the late 70s and early 80's we still had units like the 48th FIS at Langley AFB VA, 5th FIS Minot AFB ND and 318th FIS at McChord AFB WA. These units maintained 4 alert A/C at numerous locations throughout the nation. These units closed due to budget cuts and today and almost 100% of the nations interceptors are maintained by various ANG units. This is a travesty that is only getting worse since the AF and congress are fixated on getting the F-22 in service. The tremendous cost of fielding this cold war interceptor will lead to many F-15 and F-16 units as evidenced by the recent BRAC announcements to be retired or consolidated. We are effectively disarming ourselves with these policies, but this of course is for another discussion.

Posted by: Billmil at June 3, 2005 9:51 PM

billmil: thanks for the info; lonbud is not fooling anyone here. in fact, he seems to have gotten bored and wandered off.

Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 11:10 PM

Peter: You really want me to start making Canadian/Virgin jokes?

Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 11:27 PM

maybe peter doesn't but i sure do (want some v/a jokes)

Posted by: cjm at June 4, 2005 12:18 AM

I would think that everyone understands that the planes on 9/11 took off from US airports, and were not inbound from Europe. Quite a difference, no?

People knew in general about aircraft as weapons - as in Clancy's book and the movie EXECUTIVE DECISION - but the reality of having to intercept a commercial jet just didn't seem, uh, real. Do any of us think that even if a fighter happened to see either of the planes heading for the WTC that the pilot would have fired?

And the notion that lonbud, or Michael Moore, or John F. Kerry, or Howard Dean, or any other critic (or moonbat) would have shot down a commercial jet is beyond farcical. 9/11 was the day the war came to America, after years of skirmishes overseas.

Incidentally, there were people who knew that morning exactly what was happening (like John O'Neill, the ex-FBI agent who had just reported for private duty at the WTC). Do any critics of the US government show regret (or anger) at the bureacracy's overwhelming timidity in silencing men like O'Neill (who wanted to take the war directly to Osama in 1998)? I don't remember reading about it. They would have been first in line in slapping O'Neill had he pursued his course. So, no - their crocodile tears fool no one, and their false moralizing is but a feeble embarrassment.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 4, 2005 12:54 AM

What do you get when you cross a Canadian and a virgin?

A Canadian and a virgin.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 4, 2005 11:08 AM

hehe, too funny

Posted by: cjm at June 4, 2005 11:26 AM

What do you get when you cross a Canadian and a virgin?

A worthwhile Canadian initiative.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 4, 2005 3:31 PM

i can see this is a rich mine of comedic material :)

Posted by: at June 5, 2005 11:57 AM

How can you identify the virgin at an orgy?

She's chatting up the Canadian.

How can she identify the Canadian?

Coloured socks.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 5, 2005 3:23 PM
« DOHFLATION: | Main | PLAYING THE INDIA CARD: »