http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-1 ... story.html

Because the surprise attacks were unfolding, in that innocent age, faster than they could arm war planes, Penney and her commanding officer went up to fly their jets straight into a Boeing 757.

“We wouldn’t be shooting it down. We’d be ramming the aircraft,” Penney recalls of her charge that day. “I would essentially be a kamikaze pilot.”

Holy crap. And how does she spend her spare time?

She takes the stick of her own vintage 1941 Taylorcraft tail-dragger whenever she can

I'll bet she can even fly a little formation.

I could not believe that when I first read it years ago..... how could the world's largest air force be caught flat-footed with unarmed aircraft?

Its called a STAND DOWN order !

Blind adherence to orders. Patriotic, or stupid. You be the judge.

So, to prevent an aircraft from hitting a building and, in the process, kill 100s if not 1000s, you wouldn't give yourlife?

Selfish or stupid, I'll let you decide...

AB. I think the choice was patriotic or stupid. Not selfish or stupid.

The thing that bothers me, and bothered me during my time in the military, was the political correctness, or lack of common sense displayed by many senior officers.
Sending an unarmed aircraft up to defend anything demonstrates a complete lack of common sense. And I expect if you dug a bit you would find the rationale would be something along the lines of preventing an accidental weapon discharge...safety is no. 1. Defending the country with a plane designed to do that....well....not no. 1
So the pilot(s) are asked to sacrifice their life to overcome this little failure to plan....

Years ago. Many years ago. Fighters flew hot....almost all the time....this incident would not have happened. But unfortunately, some senior officers become senior officers by simply keeping their heads down, hiding behind a desk, and attending career planning sessions with a brief case. Takes a conflict and unfortunately the loss of many lives to get rid of them,

I admire the courage of the pilots making this decision, though I suspect if it had happened they would have been held responsible, post humorously, for the loss of their aircraft. But as long as we focus on that, we forget who the idiot was who did not have armed aircraft on standby....and a little birdie tells me that the policy has changed. Luckily, no pilots had to sacrifice their lives to compensate. There is a lesson to be learned here for Canada's general staff.

Heather is one cool chick

She actually just about bit it at Reno a couple years ago in a Viper powered L29..

I think I have pics somewhere, but essentially the engine mount yielded, and just about burn the tail section off the plane...

PS her dad is pretty cool as well

Not stupid at all to send up an unarmed F-16 to bring an airliner down if that is all you have.

And if it was me, I would have intercepted, put my wing through their elevator/horizontal stab in order to make the airliner go out of control and then ejected if my F-16 went out of control.

Maybe she would have been a Kamikaze equivalent but there was a good chance that it would have been unnecessary, depending on where the interception took place.

And if it was me, I would have intercepted, put my wing through their elevator/horizontal stab in order to make the airliner go out of control and then ejected if my F-16 went out of control.

That is only because you are a super pilot. For those that actually fly the real things they probably want to insure they bring the other aircraft down, and that typically means taking the tail off...but hevk, what do I know compared to you.

As to sending up unarmed aircraft if that is all you have..of course. But that begs the question as to why the aircraft were not armed and ready doesn't it?

trey kule wrote:AB. I think the choice was patriotic or stupid. Not selfish or stupid.

Trey, I believe Aux's point was that refusing to sacrifice your own life to save hundreds, and potentially thousands, would be either selfish or stupid.

Ah....it was the "so" in his post which I incorrectly assumed was his response to the previous post.

trey kule wrote: That is only because you are a super pilot. For those that actually fly the real things they probably want to insure they bring the other aircraft down, and that typically means taking the tail off...but hevk, what do I know compared to you.

Less I guess. My method would have worked. Ramming a wing into the back of an elevator at a controlled but increasing closing speed and an angle in case of dual elevators would have meant a loss of control immediately.

But you would be free to try first if you had insisted.

trey kule wrote: As to sending up unarmed aircraft if that is all you have..of course. But that begs the question as to why the aircraft were not armed and ready doesn't it?

You need to put the situation into perspective. After the Soviet Union collapsed, the perceived threat to US/Canada was very low: Russian bombers were not flying close to our airspace anymore. As a result, the US and Canada decreased their alert status. There was no perceived need for armed fighters on alert. At the time, the ONE mission (intercepting suspect civilian planes) did not exist.

You cannot fly all your aircraft armed all the time; there are some serious implications of doing so. You cannot park the aircraft on the same ramp you would normally use. You need to park it in a Designated Loading Area. Minor, but this needs to be considered.

The more important point to me is the implications of what you cannot do in-flight with an armed aircraft. Just like you wouldn't point a loaded gun at someone's face, the same principles apply (to a point) to live missiles. In the US, you cannot partake at all in training if you have live missiles. In Canada, you can, but you cannot take trigger (making the training essentially useless). You cannot go through the motions of arming up the aircraft, taking trigger and seeing all the cues that appear. More importantly, you cannot assess your shots.

My (educated) 2 cents on the matter..

My understanding is now the aircraft, at least in the US are armed. Do you know if that is correct?

Actually , I just went to the definitive source...youtube! 2011. cF 18 intercepting a civilian challenger....looks armed to me....

trey kule wrote:My understanding is now the aircraft, at least in the US are armed. Do you know if that is correct?

Actually , I just went to the definitive source...youtube! 2011. cF 18 intercepting a civilian challenger....looks armed to me....

We have dedicated alert aircraft armed. But the daily training aircraft are not armed.

You guys are all losers. Obviously a guy with skills would get in front of the airliner and take it out with "jet wash"like on top gun.

Pop n Fresh wrote:You guys are all losers. Obviously a guy with skills would get in front of the airliner and take it out with "jet wash"like on top gun.

Even better yet, pull in front of them, dump your fuel, whip out your Zippo, give her a flick and toss it out the window, or how about using your afterburner to ignite the fuel. Now you're talking badazz instant Taliban bbq.

All joking aside, not sure I'd have the stones to do what she did.

60 years earlier, virtually to the day. Probably where they got the idea for the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yekaterina_Zelenko

On September 12, 1941, Zelenko's Su-2 was attacked by seven Me-109s. After Zelenko ran out of ammunition, she launched a top-down air ramming which tore an Me-109 into two as the propeller hit the German aircraft's tail. The Su-2 she was piloting exploded though, and Zelenko was pulled out of cockpit. The air combat was observed by local residents who identified her body.

Broken Slinky wrote:

Pop n Fresh wrote:You guys are all losers. Obviously a guy with skills would get in front of the airliner and take it out with "jet wash"like on top gun.

Even better yet, pull in front of them, dump your fuel, whip out your Zippo, give her a flick and toss it out the window, or how about using your afterburner to ignite the fuel. Now you're talking badazz instant Taliban bbq.

All joking aside, not sure I'd have the stones to do what she did.

Joke as you might, but if the USAF still had the F111's in service.....

AuxBatOn wrote:So, to prevent an aircraft from hitting a building and, in the process, kill 100s if not 1000s, you wouldn't give yourlife?

Selfish or stupid, I'll let you decide...

Nope. You signed up for that....i didn't/wouldn't.

So, people signing up for this are stupid, is that what you are inferring?

He is implying that he would not be capable to make such a choice, therefore he did not sign up for that.
Seems pretty honest to me.