Terrorist Lawsuit

[Aurielius]

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

 

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris.

 

I watched an automobile engine shred a crowd, and kill 20+ people...... I can't imagine what a jet engine going thru a crowd would do.... considering it is 10 times the size, and weight, not to mention it will be moving MUCH faster. Even without the rest of the jet, that's gonna make a mess. Also, consider the size of possible aircraft that may be used. It is going to take more than one air to air missile to knock down a 747... unless you get a lucky hit, and blow off a wing. Even without fuel, that is a LOT of metal bits coming down. SAM's are more than likely one-shot-kills, but still.... I am thinkin' if it gets to the point of having to fire a SAM, it's way too late in any event. Folks are gonna die. Lots of them.

 

I am thinking a total exclusion zone, and if you fly into it, you are immediately shot down. No questions asked, no radio contact, no warning shots. Cross this line, and you die. End of story. Automated beacons transmitting a warning on a wide range of frequencies wouldn't hurt I suppose.

 

Just out of idle curiosity though, where is Heathrow in relation to the Olympics? Is the village on the approach/departure path of any runways? That would certainly make life interesting.....

 

@Jim_UK. That's just scary. One would think, that given how many YEARS they had to plan for this, they could have done a bit better than what those articles indicate.

Interesting but unfeasible idea because a large part of the approach paths to Heathrow fly directly over London, I am keenly aware of that since the buggers fly directly overhead when I visit my mum in Chelsea (SW London) every damn morning starting at 5:00am. :verymad: Greater London is very large in geographic size, covering an area of 611 sq mi. Both Gatwick and Heathrow are necessary to handle just normal air traffic.

 

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3276/londont.gif

Edited July 24, 2012 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

 

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris.

 

I watched an automobile engine shred a crowd, and kill 20+ people...... I can't imagine what a jet engine going thru a crowd would do.... considering it is 10 times the size, and weight, not to mention it will be moving MUCH faster. Even without the rest of the jet, that's gonna make a mess. Also, consider the size of possible aircraft that may be used. It is going to take more than one air to air missile to knock down a 747... unless you get a lucky hit, and blow off a wing. Even without fuel, that is a LOT of metal bits coming down. SAM's are more than likely one-shot-kills, but still.... I am thinkin' if it gets to the point of having to fire a SAM, it's way too late in any event. Folks are gonna die. Lots of them.

 

I am thinking a total exclusion zone, and if you fly into it, you are immediately shot down. No questions asked, no radio contact, no warning shots. Cross this line, and you die. End of story. Automated beacons transmitting a warning on a wide range of frequencies wouldn't hurt I suppose.

 

Just out of idle curiosity though, where is Heathrow in relation to the Olympics? Is the village on the approach/departure path of any runways? That would certainly make life interesting.....

 

@Jim_UK. That's just scary. One would think, that given how many YEARS they had to plan for this, they could have done a bit better than what those articles indicate.

Interesting but unfeasible idea because a large part of the approach paths to Heathrow fly directly over London, I am keenly aware of that since the buggers fly directly overhead when I visit my mum in Chelsea (SW London) every damn morning starting at 5:00am. :verymad: Greater London is very large in geographic size, covering an area of 611 sq mi. Both Gatwick and Heathrow are necessary to handle just normal air traffic.

 

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3276/londont.gif

 

Well. so much for that thought..... Yeah, you are quite correct... That's certainly going to make life interesting.....

[JimboUK]

http://i.imgur.com/C0bI3.gif

 

The zones only apply to private aircraft, the outer zone requires filing of a flight plan 24 hours in advance, the inner one private aircraft aren't allowed in at all. Commercial airlines aren't effected as long as they stick to their corridor.

[HeyYou]

So the hot ticket would be, taking over a scheduled flight TO London, When it is already near Heathrow. If the approach is from the east.... give you a target rich environment, and they aren't going to be real willing to shoot you down out of hand.

[JimboUK]

I quite like this no fly zone, we have a small airfield up the road and it appears a lot of people have chosen not to fly at all which has made things nice and quiet.

 

With any luck things should be OK, the government have bought in thousands of troops to cover the private security cock up, there's now more British troops in London than then there are in Afghanistan. There's also been a number of arrests so it appears the intelligence services are awake. I'll be glad when it's all over, the only thing your average joe is getting from this circus is the bill.

[Maharg67]

The only real merit to this case, going back to focus on the topic, is that is could instigate some widespread meaningful debate on the issue of the use of armed drones in relation to international law, in to domestic laws of all nations and other related subjects. It is a very unusual lawsuit and took me by surprise upon seeing it. I have mixed views on the use of armed drones by any nation.

[HeyYou]

The only real merit to this case, going back to focus on the topic, is that is could instigate some widespread meaningful debate on the issue of the use of armed drones in relation to international law, in to domestic laws of all nations and other related subjects. It is a very unusual lawsuit and took me by surprise upon seeing it. I have mixed views on the use of armed drones by any nation.

 

Drones are not autonomous. They are still controlled by a human, said human just isn't in the same location as the drone. The target doesn't really care if the missile that is incoming was fired from a drone, or, from an aircraft that has a human pilot sitting in the c*ckpit. Either way, things go BOOM, and people die. It's not like the terrorists have a fighting chance against either...... It just seems that there is a POLITICAL difference between sending a drone into a sovereign nations territory, and sending a manned aircraft into the same airspace.... one seems to be a bit more acceptable than the other.

[Ghogiel]

one seems to be a bit more acceptable than the other.

I think one is a bit more scary in principal. I blame scifi movies.

[HeyYou]

one seems to be a bit more acceptable than the other.

I think one is a bit more scary in principal. I blame scifi movies.

 

It IS Hollywood's fault!!!!!

 

Ok, I can go with that. :D