Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Patrols Over Manhattan?  
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3002 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

I saw one of these out my office window just a little while ago:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



It flew fairly low over the Statue of Liberty, then headed up the Hudson. Normally it might not have caught my attention, but I work on a very high floor, just a couple of blocks from Ground Zero, so with this Orange Alert I've been a bit jumpier than usual when it comes to low-flying aircraft! I was happy to see that it was one of the "good guys."


Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Probably not a patrol, as I don't think you'd see them really low flying up the Hudson. LGA was using the ILS to 22 today, and planes were flying up the Hudson, so perhaps he was coming into LGA (I saw a pretty low flying FL 717 and DL 767 over Chinatown today). Also, I don't think the Coast Guard is responsible for patrols. First off, that kind of plane isn't armed, so would do almost no good if there were to be a potential threat which required a shootdown. Also, I think the ANG were the ones doing the patrols a while back with F16's.


User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3002 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

No, I also see the planes on approach to LGA out my window, and they are much higher and on a different heading. I am on the 56th floor and this one was more or less at eye level, which is why I did a double take! I often see Blackhawks, and occasionally F-16s, but never an HU-25 before. I just assumed it was related to the Orange Alert, but maybe not.






Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineUSAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

With Orange I suppose anything is possible...

Greg



Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

>>> DASSAULT HU-25B FALCON (20G) 2125

According to the info from another site, the aircraft pictured is actually a "B" verson. The main differences between the "A", "B", and "C" were in the sensor packages installed, and the site denotes the "A" version as a search and rescue aircraft (SAR), the "B" version as a surveillance aircraft, and the "C" version as an "Interceptor" (as in drug interdiction).

As such, it's quite possible that the aircraft had been keeping an eye out for things over the water east of the NYC area...


Someone else said:
>>>Also, I don't think the Coast Guard is responsible for patrols.

Keep in mind to that there are patrols for detection, and patrols for interception... In the post 9/11 world, they use whatever assets they have available, no matter what branch "owns" them...  Big grin




User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

That thing is about as useful at stopping terrorism as Sandy Weill's Gulfstream V or Mike Bloomberg's Falcon 900. Why don't we just have a ring of bizjets owned by Wall Street types circling Manhattan as a 'ring of steel' to prevent attacks, or are there so many they'd start hitting each other?

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

I think the HU-25s have a little bit more stuff on them than a conventional bizjet...

From globalsecurity.org

The HU-25A, HU-25B, and HU-25C are three variants of the HU-25; the primary difference is in the installed sensor package. Variants include the Air Eye (HU-25B) and Nightstalker (HU-25C). Air Eye is equipped with the APG-66 radar and Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR). The HU-25B is also equipped with an air eye avionics package and wing pads carrying side-looking radar (SALR).


User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Hmm, so are they intercepting my phone calls? Or looking at my grandma taking a shower? Nice to know the government is electronically spying on the citizens of New York City, that makes me feel really safe...

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Now, there's no need for you to start putting aluminum foil all over everything...  Big grin

My only points were:

1/ That this isn't a bizjet (on the inside), and that

2/ Its presence in the NYC area is probably related to the elevated threat conditions. It had probably been operating (not overhead your house) but out east over the water a couple of hundres miles east of NYC, and came into the NYC and landed for fuel or something.



User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

The patrols over NYC are handled mostly by the 177th Fighter Wing of the New Jersey Air National Guard out of Atlantic City International Airport, they are the closest Fighter Wing to NYC.

The 177th also does patrols over Washington D.C., the Vermont Air National Guard also flies patrols over NYC from time to time.

With the new reality of the World being that more air patrols and fighter aircraft are on "alert" status on the ground I think the 177th NJANG Fighter wing should move closer to NYC, preferably Lakehurst Naval Air Station.

McGuire is busy enough, the 177th should move to Lakehurst. Nice facilities and not as busy as McGuire AFB, also helps the base's status during the next BRAC.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Anyone know of any reason other than historical inference why NYC should be the target of an attack and not one of the dozens of other major US cities that have potential high value targets like stadiums, nuclear plants, shopping malls, and high rise buildings? Would the military even have enough assets to operate patrols over ALL those cities?

User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

RiverVisualNYC:

Cuase no one really cares if it were to happen to another city. (look at Oklahoma City bombing, after a while people forgot). You have to attack a place where there are millions of people and which is considered the "capital of the world". Flying a plane into the needle in Seattle, is going to evoke less of a sentiment from the American people than flying a plane into the Empire State Building would. I mean they'd be sad, but half of America has probably never been to Seattle and really wouldn't feel much. On the other side, half of America (maybe not half, but a lot of people) have been to NYC, has visited all these monuments, know the historical value of the city and how it is the "capital of the world", and are more likely to be like "Wow, I could have been there..." or "I could have been on that flight" or "I've been there several times, I can't believe they did that"...
This is what I have seen in people at least.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

"Would the military even have enough assets to operate patrols over ALL those cities? "

Sure, every State has a Air National Guard Component. Most with fighter capabilities, their core mission is defense of US Airspace.

Unfortunatetly on September 11th 2001 there were only a handfull (5?) of ANG Fighter Wings on "Strip Alert" ready to scramble within 5 minutes of a warning, the closest "Alert" Wing to NYC was the Massachusets ANG with F-15s.

The NJ ANG 177th Fighter Wing was not on alert status on that day, however they were able to scramble armed aircraft within 60 minutes of the first crash into the WTC. Unfortunately they were too late to prevent the second crash, or the crash at the Pentagon.

UAL flight 93 most likely would have been intercepted and shot down before it reached Washington D.C., besides the NJ ANG the North Dakota ANG had F-16s at Langley AFB in Virginia that were scrambled to intercept flight 93.

Their tracts and speed (Super Sonic) according to articles I read would have had them intercepting UAL #93 on the outskirts of DC in the Maryland Sububurbs.

Today there are probably 10 ANG Fighter Wing units on "strip alert" or airborne that could respond within 5 minutes of alert, mostly around the big Cities.

NJ (NYC, Philadelphia, Washington DC)

Massachusets (Boston)

California (San Francisco, Los Angeles)

Illinois (Chicago)

Florida (Orlando etc)

Im not sure but I do not think the active Duty Air Force or Navy have any part in the air patrols, I think it's all Air National Guard Units.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 3002 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

Maybe it was on patrol: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20031223/ap_on_re_us/terror_threat

Anyway, RiverVisualNYC, I don't know if NY is being singled out for extra protection, but if it is, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the government has learned more from this terrorist "chatter" than it is letting on. Let's all just keep our fingers crossed that nothing bad happens this holiday season.



Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineNycfuturepilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

i know that in the past week the air force has been taking pictures of lower manhattan and according to WNBC the planes are supposed to fly low over the down town area fly up to around the empire state building then swing back and do it a few more times. It might be connected to that.


Father, Son, HOYA spirit
User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Forgive me all if I am a bit cynical, but I am a survivor (guess I can now call it that) of the almost all-but-forgotten 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In its aftermath, all sorts of precautions were taken to protect the building from another bomb, such as barring the public from using the underground garage and requiring visitors to register with security in the lobby. In the end, the buildings were taken down by an external force that had not been considered, i.e. two aircraft. The lesson I think we can learn from this is that terrorists think outside the box, and while they may continue to focus on the same targets as before, they change their methods to get around whatever well-known security precautions are in place. In short, you can never be 100% safe, you can just hope that you identify the gaps in the security system before the terrorist does.

User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

RiverVisualNYC:

That is so true. Here are my two biggest fears, since I really dont think a hijacking the conventional way would ever happen again:

) Sleeper cells are training or are currently pilots, and will attempt to, or even scarier, may already have flying jobs with major airlines or cargo airlines. Eventually, they will be called upon to carry out attacks using their airplanes. It will be extremely easy for these people to carry out these attacks, as for one, no one will notice until it's too late that something is wrong with their plane, and since cockpit doors are now armed and almost impossible to break into, there will be no way to stop these attacks. Even if the other pilot has no clue of his flying partner's intents before the door has been closed, since pilots are now allowed to carry guns, the terrorist could very easily shoot his partner (i.e. right before takeoff) and at an airport like LGA, JFK or EWR would be in Manhattan in minutes, giving the Air Force or any other defense departments almost no time to intercept and shoot down the plane.

The other concern are SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles). The logistics of actually obtaining these and then carrying them around is a little tough, but I'm sure it can be done very easily (i.e. paying certain people off). All it takes is one SAM, fired by almost anyone (no experience is really needed, especially if the plane is only a few hundred feet above you) to bring a plane down. Somebody could easily shoot one from the rooftop under the approach path to an aiport (i.e. RWY 4 at LGA's approach path is right over Queens and the Jackson Heights and Elmhurst areas), and then quickly "disapear", giving this person the opportunity to carry out other attacks.

Anyway, those are by far my two biggest fears, the first one would really destroy air travel, as almost no one would feel safe to fly. I hope these never happen, but in our world, anything is possible.

STT757:

As far as I know, it is the ANG that are on alert and are doing the "random" patrols that they said we're now going to get because of the alert level being raised.


Also, NYC is on alert for a female suicide bomber planning an attack on the crowded tourist areas. I heard this the other day on the news.


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Anyone know of any reason other than historical inference why NYC should be the target of an attack and not one of the dozens of other major US cities that have potential high value targets like stadiums, nuclear plants, shopping malls, and high rise buildings? Would the military even have enough assets to operate patrols over ALL those cities?

Manhattan is the most densely occupied area in America. That's why it's always a target. One bomb can kill lots of people.

Combat Air Patrols were flown over many major U.S. cities after 9/11. It costs the government lots of money, so they don't routinely do it anymore (except for maybe over Washington, DC during higher alert periods).

Unfortunately, there really isn't much that can be done to protect every statium, every shopping mall, and every high rise building in this country.



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2608 times:

Jcx-Very observant. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I always thought having a 2-man cockpit crew was a bit risky because if one of them freaks out, whether as a terrorist act or because his wife left him or he just wants to die, you have only 1 guy left in there to deal with it rather than the 2 or 3 you might have had in there 25 years ago. If you've ever been in a fight, you'll realize it's nice to have backup. But being so cost-focused, I am sure the airline industry would rather fly pilotless drones than have to pay for a 3rd or 4th licensed pilot in the cockpit, even though there are so many out of work that they'd probably do it for the health plan.

As for the SAM issue, sadly there alot floating around, including the ones supplied by the US to the Afghan mujihadeen that were meant to be used against the Soviets, but largely ended up in the hands of the Taliban or on the market in rural Pakistan. History has proven that it is nearly impossible to keep people who are determined from getting their hands on whatever they want, whether it's drugs or weapons.

As for the suicide bomber, maybe this is in fact the biggest threat. Let's say there are a handful of them, and they coordinate a simultaneous attack on mass transit systems or shopping malls in different cities. Each one might not kill alot of people, but the nation would be paralyzed. And that's really the point, they don't just want to kill people, they want to disrupt the American economy and way of life. Who would ride the subway or go shopping at the mall after such an attack? In Israel, I understand they actually have airport-style security in shopping malls, but do you think the American people would tolerate it?


User currently offlineJayhup From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 452 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

As of last night (Monday) CAP was alive and well over NY. I'm 100% sure because of the sound the plane was making and the collision lights are much different than commercial a/c. I live about 20 minutes from JFK and there was a lone fighter jet over my area doing racetracks most of the night. In the past I've seen CAP in pairs but last night it was a lone fighter.

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13649 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This just in...the LAPD has made a number of "pre-emptive arrests" to thwart potential terrorist activity.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/threat.level/index.html



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineMog From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2488 times:

Well, if it makes civil aviation that wee bit safer in the US, that's good.

Indian Air Force jets "discreetly" accompany or shadow civil airliners on certain routes, over India, for quite some time now. It seems to work, and just the knowledge that this happens keeps things safer.

I think this should be encouraged worldwide. We know that they may be there, we cannot see them from the passenger seats, and we think that keeps the skies safe. In any case, with war and battle between governments reducing (hopefully), it gives the Air Force a much more humane job to do.

Thank you, Air Forces. Of any country.



User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Azerbaijan, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 14078 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

A few things:
RiverVisualNYC:
I´m quite sure that terrorists will look for security leak. You mentioned the subways: It has been tried in Paris, France in the early ´90s when Algerian terrorists set off bombs in Metro stations and public places for several weeks. In the end the French government removed dust bins and had sever manholes welded shut, and they let military patrol through those places, just a step short to declaring martial law. Eventusly the perpetrators got caught.

On another website ran by hobby gas turbine builders a while ago I found a discussion about how easy it would be to build a home made cruise missile for less than $20,000 out of readily available material, including a GPS receiver, which could be launched in a rural area and then fly 50 miles beneath the radar coverage to a target, carrying a payload of 50 kgs. Imagine this to be filled with a biological or chemical warhead. Money is no problem for the current generation of terrorists, unlike their communist or nationalist precedecors in Europe (Red Army Faction in Germany, IRA in Ireland, ETA in the Basque country, Red Brigads in Italy), who had to resort to rob banks for funding.

Then, even if yiou have fighter cover, if you shoot down a large jet over a populated area you´ll kill a lot of people on the ground.
Earlier this year a mentaly deranged college student stole a Katana from a GA airport close to Frankfurt (FRA) and threatened to crash himself into the bank buildings (Frankfurt is Germany´s business captital with a skyline imitating NYC), wanting to remember the late US astronaut Sally Ride (who died in the Challenger explosion). The Luftwaffe sent two F-4s up to cover him.
Now imagine the damage caused by this light plane crashing into a building with it´s approx. 500 kgs, and 40 liters of uel on board. You could as well crash into the Empire State Building with an ordinary car, no big damage to the building.
Now imagine the fighters would have opened up with their Sidewinders over the city: The rockets probably wouldn´t even have seen the target because the engine isn´t producing a lot of heat, hitting some building.
Or the 20mm shells of the F-4´s cannons would have ripped right through the composite plane, exploding again in the city.
An ATC controller managed to talk him into landing in FRA, where hegot arrested. He´s been certified insane and was sentenced to be locked away in a mental institution.
Jan


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16885 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

"since pilots are now allowed to carry guns"

Only US pilots who go through a rigorous background check etc carry guns, they are not going to give guns to someone who are not born and raised in the US.

As for the SAM threat, not to down play it but I think folks over play the threat.

There have been "atleast" 3-4 attempts to shoot down large commercial/military aircraft in the last year or two.

The Isreali incident which missed the Akira aircraft, then the DHL aircraft at at Baghdad international (which was a hit but the plane landed safely) then a US Air Force C-17 which was hit but landed safely as well.

The shoulder fired SAMS have not proven to be the threat people make them out to be, most miss and the ones that do hit cause similar damage as an engine loosing fan blades in flight which is common.

SAMS are real threats to helicopters, which is what they were designed for. Low, slow flying helicopters with internal engines which attract heat seeking missiles right to the aircraft's center.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Fortunately, Man-Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) systems wouldn't do much to today's large high-bypass turbofan engines, as the recent attack on the DHL A300B4 freighter in Iraq demonstrated (the engine damage looked not much different than ingesting a small number of birds). The fact the warheads sport about 0.5 kg of explosive means you won't see much explosive effect on such a large engine.

25 Garnetpalmetto : The fact the warheads sport about 0.5 kg of explosive means you won't see much explosive effect on such a large engine. Where did you get this figure?
26 MD11Engineer : Acc. to a former colleague, who´s been a NCO in the German Luftwaffe, primarely as A/C mechanic, but also in charge of a squad armed with Stinger mis
27 EA CO AS : remember the late US astronaut Sally Ride (who died in the Challenger explosion). Yes, I'm nitpicking, but Sally Ride is alive and well. Astronaut Ju
28 STT757 : From what I've read all the attacks recently against aircraft with SAMS are SA-7s, the US sold Stingers to the Afghan Freedom fighters 20 years ago. T
29 MD11Engineer : EA CO AS, I stand corrected, it was Judith Resnick he was in love with. Jan
30 Cicadajet : I've seen the Coast Guard jet over NY harbor before, unrelated to LGA traffic, but its an uncommon sight. Yes, they do swoop rather low. I'd imagine i
31 FoxBravo : Thanks, Cicadajet--glad to know I'm not crazy! Have a good holiday.
32 AGM100 : Just a question , would the gov use the RC-7 for this kind of ELINT work. Or is that aircraft mainly for the battlefield ?
33 Rjpieces : FoxBravo, if you don't mind me asking, where do you work near Ground Zero? I go to school right there. New York is the capital of the world and thus i
34 Post contains links GLAguy : Hi Guys, you may find this barticle from the Guardian Newspaper in the UK to be of some interest: http://www.jihadunspun.com/index-side_external.php?a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
That DC-4E Shot Over Manhattan posted Thu Feb 2 2006 02:16:01 by Timz
Planes Over Manhattan posted Sun Sep 11 2005 02:46:08 by Soylentgreen
Airliners Over Manhattan posted Fri Oct 22 2004 00:06:17 by MarcoB2
Air Patrols Over DC During Reagan Funeral? posted Thu Jun 10 2004 21:56:23 by Andrewmorrell
Air Patrols Resume Over N.Y., D.C. posted Sat Sep 7 2002 22:49:01 by Jhooper
Close Formation Over Chattanooga TN posted Tue Dec 19 2006 23:55:38 by Leo8448
LAX Airlines Cry Foul Over New Rents posted Tue Dec 19 2006 19:05:52 by Laxintl
PIREP: Severe Turbulence @ FL360 Over CA (12/18) posted Mon Dec 18 2006 23:35:02 by 777fan
Monarch Takes Over LTN-LCA After Ajet Demise posted Sat Dec 16 2006 19:17:30 by Spetouss
NZ Looks At Less Legroom Over Tasman On A320s posted Fri Dec 15 2006 22:42:57 by 777ER