The terrorists may not have won, but...

[billege]

Original Text

Fletcher's plane stirs a panic; Capitol, high court evacuated
LOSS OF ELECTRONIC SIGNAL RAISES ALARM
By Ryan Alessi
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

The airplane carrying Gov. Ernie Fletcher to Washington yesterday for former President Ronald Reagan's funeral caused a brief but panicky evacuation of the U.S. Capitol and Supreme Court and received a swift greeting from fighter jets.

The Kentucky State Police plane, a 33-year-old turbo-prop, had just taken off from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in Erlanger when its transponder, which emits an electronic identification signal, began to malfunction, said Daniel Groves, Fletcher's chief of staff. Radio contact was never lost, he said.

Just before 4:30 p.m., as the plane neared Reagan National Airport, the failure led air traffic controllers to report an unauthorized plane in the large restricted airspace over Washington -- even though Fletcher's plane had been cleared to be there, said Rebecca Trexler, spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.

In a city already on edge, the response was swift.

Security officials ordered politicians and dignitaries to clear the Capitol, just 90 minutes before Reagan's coffin was to arrive.

In the Rotunda, where the former president was to lie in state, an army officer ran in yelling, "Evacuate the building now." Uniformed military officers started running, heels clicking on the marble. Senators also ran.

Police told women to take off their shoes and run. If people dropped items, they were told to leave them. Some officers even loudly counted down the minutes to "impact."

"Ladies and gentlemen, let's move like our lives depend on it. I mean it!" a Washington, D.C., police officer shouted as lawmakers and staffers poured into the streets.

Police hustled House Speaker Dennis Hastert -- second in line to the presidency -- away in a secured motorcade. Across the street, at the Supreme Court, several justices were whisked away in cars as an alarm sounded and officers yelled, "To the basement, to the basement."

Two F-15 fighters from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which protects U.S. airspace, were diverted from patrol to look at the governor's plane close-up. Black Hawk helicopters escorted it in.

Although Fletcher has been involved in such fly-bys before, he has rarely been on the receiving end. In the 1970s, he piloted F-4E aircraft for-NORAD in Alaska and led the interceptions of 10 Soviet military aircraft.

Groves, the chief of staff, said the state police plane's two pilots were in contact with air traffic controllers by radio "the whole time" and he blamed events on miscommunication between airport officials and the Air Force.

"They had been cleared to land," Groves said. Normally "the transponder would have allowed the Air Force to track the plane."

The public embarrassment of the evacuation could spark the state to upgrade its aircraft, Groves said.

The state's Beechcraft King Air is the oldest of its model still in operation, according to serial numbers filed with the U.S. Air Force. Kentucky bought the aircraft from the Air Force in 1997.

Earlier this year, the plane's rudder stopped working during a landing, Groves said. "It's unfortunate that this was the second time this aircraft had a problem," he said. "We will be looking at leasing or purchasing a newer, safer aircraft."

Fletcher was at a conference in California earlier this week and returned to Kentucky yesterday afternoon as scheduled. He chose to take the state plane to Washington because he couldn't find a commercial flight that would get him into Washington in time for the Reagan ceremonies, Groves said.

Groves also said it was cheaper to fly the state plane. A last-minute ticket on Delta Air Lines would have cost more than $1,000, according to Delta.

Besides Fletcher and the two pilots, a member of the governor's state police security detail was aboard the plane. First lady Glenna Fletcher stayed in Kentucky to attend a previously scheduled event.

Fletcher, who represented Central Kentucky in Congress for nearly five years, will be running into old friends and former colleagues at the Reagan ceremonies the rest of the week, and "I suspect he'll get a little bit" of ribbing from them, Groves said.

But yesterday afternoon, one of those friends, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., offered a more sobering analysis. Sweat pouring down his face on the 90-degree muggy day, he said: "This shows the system works."

Yep, this shows the system works. Taking over Afganistan, owning Iraq, that's all been such a success. Americans are not afraid of a creaking old lawnmower-with-wings flown by a guy named "Ernie." No way we'd panic over that. No way. Right?

[onetime2]

Originally posted by billege
this shows the system works. Taking over Afganistan, owning Iraq, that's all been such a success. Americans are not afraid of a creaking old lawnmower-with-wings flown by a guy named "Ernie." No way we'd panic over that. No way. Right?

Umm what is it you're trying to say? The war on terror is a failure because security reacted to a potential threat that turned out not to be a threat? I don't get it.

[ARTelevision]

a plane like that could be carrying a suitcase nuke or bioweapon.
...that's right - "the system works"

[tecoyah]

I think he is refering to the fear most Americans feel now that we have begun to attack the terrorist threat. I could be wrong.
I myself have noticed a few things over the past three years.

1) While the attacks of 9/11 were certainly an eye opener, as to the vulnerability of our country, the reaction has created even more terror than the initial attacks.
2) Going after the Taliban in Afganistan, seemed to make some sense, as a form of retribution, and threat reduction. Going into Iraq made little sense at the time, and has clearly proven to be a misguided battlefield to wage a war on terror.
3) Any support we may have had, in this worldwide police action, was given away when we decided to attack a legitimate (if oppressed) nation, with liitle or no provication, under the guise of a "War on Terror".
4) We have managed to increse the level of terror, Worldwide through our descision to use a military force, designed for direct and overwhelming destruction, to take on an enemy of stealth.

We have (In my opinion) taken an incorrect course in the majority of our actions, if we intend to lower the threat level.
While I do not condone negotiations with groups bent on my destruction, I do see a need to address the "Reasons" they would have this hatred. As these reasons are extensive, and most of us already know what at least some of them are....I will refrain from listing them.

[ARTelevision]

reasonable, but sometimes in human history there is a need to simply defeat and destroy enemies. The ultimate outcome of some things is not visible in the short term.

[Mephisto2]

And how, exactly, was Iraq an enemy of the United States?

An enemy of the Bush family, yes. But an enemy of the American people? Of you? A threat?

I don't think so.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Unlike the VAST majority of Europeans (and Australians for that matter), I initially supported the war on Iraq. Why? Because I was lied to by Bush and Blair. I feel cheated and angry. The damage done to American interests, to "the West" shall take generations to heal.

They still talk about the Crusades with bitterness in the Arab world.


Mr Mephisto

EDITED

[billege]

If we panic when a Cessna flies over, then I don't see how we all feel safer. How long exactly is "short term." When will I know it's okay to feel safe?

The terrorists were pissed off at us enough to attack the World Trade center. Now, we've REALLY pissed them off by taking over Afganistan, taking over Iraq, beating prisoners, etc. etc. etc.
I don't think they're any more afraid of us than they were before. Not that the thought of dying to achieve their task scared them before.
We've added immensly to their list of grievences, and they still aren't afraid enough to hold back. We run like babies when a light plane flies over.
What exactly did we accomplish here?

The short term in the Arab mind is longer than my lifetime, so I don't think I can be placated by the "just wait, it'll be okay" position.
I am all for defeating and destroying, that's fine. Didn't we learn in Vietnam that an enemy that hides, fights, runs, hides, repeat, is not one we fight well against? These guys suffered a setback, nothing more. We didn't defeat their country (they don't have one), we moved them to a different one.


Last edit (I swear)

If the system really worked, we wouldn't worry that there was a backpack nuke or bioweapon in that plane. We'd feel that the FBI knowing which library books I check out would be worth it.

Also, to stay on point, the system didn't work. The plane, on a known and approved flight path, IN CONTACT with the tower the whole time, and cleared for landing, still caused a lot of panic.
If the system worked that sucker'd have been shot down, forced down, or ID'd well before people had to evacuate.
Instead, we're talking to it, we know who it is, we expect this person at this time, and yet we're still telling people to run like their lives depended on it.

If that's success, I'd hate to see utter failure.

[onetime2]

Given the use of planes in the 9/11 attacks it will be a long time before people who hear "an unidentified plane is headed towards" a major monument, government or civilian building, stadium, etc. No way could any battle against terrorism eliminate this fear.

As far as Iraq not being an enemy to the US, I guess firing on our military is acceptable and friendly action.

[Stud]

Originally posted by Mr Mephisto
And how, exactly, was Iraq an enemy of the United States?

An enemy of the Bush family, yes. But an enemy of the American people? Of you? A threat?

I don't think so.

Iraq was an Enemy of America because America was still at war with Iraq. Iraq's failure to meet its obligations under the ceasefire agreement that the Iraqi government signed caused US troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia.

One of the major reasons stated by Al Quida for the attacks on 9/11 was the fact that the US had troops in Saudi Arabia (They labeled it a holy land or some such)

Yes, if you ignore fact or do not feel threatened yourself Iraq was a swell place and attacked by an aggressive US. The United States a country they occupied Western Europe to keep the peaceful Soviets from spreading their love.

[Mephisto2]

Originally posted by Stud
[B]
One of the major reasons stated by Al Quida for the attacks on 9/11 was the fact that the US had troops in Saudi Arabia (They labeled it a holy land or some such)

Actually, it IS holy land if you're Muslim. Same way as the "Holy Land" (ie Jeruselem, Bethlehem, Nazareth etc) is known as... well, as the "Holy Land" to Christians.

Yes, if you ignore fact or do not feel threatened yourself Iraq was a swell place and attacked by an aggressive US.

What?

This is typical of the arguments made by supporters of Bush. Iraq was NOT invaded because America was "still at war" with it. It was invaded (without UN sanction) because Bush lied to the world stating that it had WMD and was a threat to regional, American and global security. It didn't and it wasn't. No amount of squealing and squirming and trying to change the justification after the fact will result in you or Bush's supporters from changing documented historical fact.

The "war" was a fake and America is now (very much unfortunately) suffering the consequences. Stating this simple fact is not anti-American by the way.

The United States a country they occupied Western Europe to keep the peaceful Soviets from spreading their love.

I have no idea what you mean by this, or what the Soviet Union has got to do with anything. I presume it's some kind of sarcasm, but it's lost on me unfortunately. I don't get it.


Mr Mephisto

[DelayedReaction]

Yep, this shows the system works. Taking over Afganistan, owning Iraq, that's all been such a success. Americans are not afraid of a creaking old lawnmower-with-wings flown by a guy named "Ernie." No way we'd panic over that. No way. Right?

This was a good thing. It showed that our system (the command and communications one) does work as intended. There wasn't any panic; there was an orderly evacuation that went as planned.

Once America knew what they were facing was "Ernie," then things stood down.

What would you have preferred? That the plane just be ignored? Then people would use this as an example of how America was unprepared. I would much rather have a hundred incidents such as this one than one incident where it didn't turn out to be "Ernie" in the end.

[Mephisto2]

Back to the subject at hand, I tend to agree with DelayedReaction. This shows the system DOES WORK. It's just such a pity that you actually need such a system these days...


Mr Mephisto

[elfuq]

What I want to know is what the hell was the pilot thinking. You do not fly into the DC area with a malfunctioning transponder no matter who the hell you are carrying.

[DelayedReaction]

Originally posted by elfuq
What I want to know is what the hell was the pilot thinking. You do not fly into the DC area with a malfunctioning transponder no matter who the hell you are carrying.

He had a choice? The guy was in contact with air traffic control the entire time, and was probably told to continue on his path. Given the number of aircraft in the air at one time, pilots pretty much do what they're told.

[Kostya]

Originally posted by onetime2
Umm what is it you're trying to say? The war on terror is a failure because security reacted to a potential threat that turned out not to be a threat? I don't get it.

hehe,

War on Terror being anything other than a failure... there's a laughable concept...

[water_boy1999]

I agree it was a success. I too would have preferred that miscommunication caused an evacuation rather than the consequences.

Mr. Mephisto, it is a shame that we have to live the remainder of our lives with this looming "threat" over our heads. But, since we do, I hope we continue to have "false alarms" then have another several thousand Americans killed from acts of terrorism.

[Seaver]

Move to Politics please

[elfuq]

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
He had a choice? The guy was in contact with air traffic control the entire time, and was probably told to continue on his path. Given the number of aircraft in the air at one time, pilots pretty much do what they're told.

Nope. I'm a pilot. (Private/Instrument Rating) You ALWAYS have a choice. If you're on a flight plan, you can cancel it or change it in the air. If there's an equipment malfunction of any kind, or you just don't feel happy about what ATC is telling you, then say "(callsign) is declaring an emergency" and ATC will give you anything that you ask for. They might ask you why afterwards, but while you are in the air.

<i>from the Federal Aviation Regulations:</i>

§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

While you are in the air, you have absolute authority to overrule ATC if it affects safety.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally posted by onetime2

As far as Iraq not being an enemy to the US, I guess firing on our military is acceptable and friendly action.

Do you expect the Iraqis to just sit there and let the US blow up their country without fighting back? Last time I checked it was the US who invaded Iraq under false accusations. If anyone is the enemy, it is the Americans.

[Arroe]

and you know if this wasn't the governor's plane, then everyone would be saying that they didn't do enough.

the increased security is because of 9/11, NOT the war. even if the war wasn't happening they still would take these procautions, don't kid yourself.

[Mephisto2]

Originally posted by water_boy1999
Mr. Mephisto, it is a shame that we have to live the remainder of our lives with this looming "threat" over our heads. But, since we do, I hope we continue to have "false alarms" then have another several thousand Americans killed from acts of terrorism.

That was effectively what I was saying.

We could sit and argue the pros and cons of the Iraqi war for years (and probably will do), but the fact that a plane with a malfunctioned transponder caused an evacuation at a potential target is a "good thing"; insofar as having to evacuate at all is a good thing.


Security controls and procedures = good
Invasion of Afghanistan = good
Invasion of Iraq = bad


Mr Mephisto

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Rdr4evr
Do you expect the Iraqis to just sit there and let the US blow up their country without fighting back? Last time I checked it was the US who invaded Iraq under false accusations. If anyone is the enemy, it is the Americans.

I was referring to the no-fly zone enforced by US pilots. They were not "blowing up their country" and it wasn't ordinary Iraqis doing the firing. It was Hussein's military.

Last time I checked the war with Iraq didn't start last year. Thanks for your time.

[Rdr4evr]

Originally posted by onetime2

Last time I checked the war with Iraq didn't start last year. Thanks for your time.

It didnt?

[filtherton]

Actually, i don't think it ever started. I don't think congress ever specifically declared war on iraq.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Rdr4evr
It didnt?

No it didn't. I guess you don't recall the first Gulf War which never ended and the thousands of troops we kept in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar to enforce no fly zone restrictions and maintain a presence there.