F15s Escorting A B6 A320 Into Ksea

clickhappy · Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:39 am

Anyone with the gouge? Guess they put on quite a show departing PDX.

dumbell2424 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:13 am

Another twitter threat.

Source: http://twitter.com/NewsOnTheMin/status/559514952986157058

tp1040 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:18 am

I hope it just a prank. Then I hope they track down these jerks and give them what they deserve.

RDU, ATL and now SEA.

737tdi · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:21 am

Stuff like this is ridiculous. Does nothing but cost money and inconvenience people. I hope they catch the idiot and make him pay.

11Bravo · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:21 am

Quoting clickhappy (Thread starter):
Guess they put on quite a show departing PDX.

I've seen them scramble the F-15s from the alert hangers at PDX. It is quite the show. They get those guys in the air very quickly.

LTU330 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:23 am

There is also breaking news here in Orlando saying that a Delta Flight from LAX to MCO has been diverted to DFW. That makes four flights today "compromised" in some way.

dumbell2424 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:24 am

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 2):

I hope it just a prank. Then I hope they track down these jerks and give them what they deserve.

RDU, ATL and now SEA.

Also DL1061 today was diverted to DFW due to twitter threat

See: http://twitter.com/NewsOnTheMin/status/559498623093080064

ek241yyz · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:30 am

Are you serious? How many is this within the last 3 days? 4 or 5 of these bomb threats?

pdxswa · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:30 am

It was quite a show watching them head north to SEATAC earlier this evening.

Okie · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:42 am

Quoting ek241yyz (Reply 7):
Are you serious? How many is this within the last 3 days? 4 or 5 of these bomb threats?

A lot of copycats as long as it makes the 5 O'clock news.

Okie

29erUSA187 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:44 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 4):
F-15s

Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around. Or was this the national guard? You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

Redsand187 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:52 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):

The F15 is the fastest of our fighters, good for intercepting threats.

11Bravo · Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:54 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around. Or was this the national guard? You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

The F-15C is a front line USAF fighter. I don't know what you're thinking about , but F15s are first-rate air-to-air fighters. The F-22 has replaced it in some wings, but the USAF and ANG still operate more than 250 F-15C/D.

SYDSpotter · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:02 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around. Or was this the national guard? You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

An F4 Phantom (if still flying) would've done the job if needed be. I don't know what your concern is, the job was to intercept and escort a civilian plane, not to engage in a dogfight with a modern fighter jet

IAHflyer97 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:09 am

Do we just need to make a new thread for these bomb threats? I can see it now! "Twitter Bomb Threats Thread #1"

karadion · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:24 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):

The F-15 is anything but outdated. It's been updated consistently for the last several decades. Radar, weapons, equipment, etc. Don't diss the aircraft. The F-15 can hit Mach 2.5+ at high altitude with P&W F100 engines whereas the F-35 is limited to Mach 1.6 and the F-22 is limited to Mach 2.25. There's also something the F-15 has that the F-35 and F-22 doesn't have. Numbers. They're all on station with more ANG bases in the nation than F-35's/F-22's. F-35's won't be commonplace because of the Low Rate Initial Production rate they have right now. The F-22 eliminated it's production line in the last decade. The ANG's are the ones that responds to these threats, not the active duty component.

FATFlyer · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:40 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around. Or was this the national guard? You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

The F-15s would have been from the 142nd Fighter Wing of the Oregon Air National Guard. They are on alert for interceptions from the Oregon/California border to the Canadian border.

South from Oregon to the Mexico border (basically California), the first aircraft to respond would also be F15s. But in this case they would be from the 144th Fighter Wing of the California Air National Guard.

The 144th is based at FAT and operates alert aircraft from both Fresno and the March base in Riverside.

The 144th in California was operating F-16C/Ds until 2013. Those aircraft were replaced at the 144th in 2013 with the current F-15s.

karadion · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:44 am

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 16):
The 144th in California was operating F-16C/Ds until 2013.

My dad loves to diss on Fresno. He has a couple funny stories on the issue between Fresno and Portland regarding Bear bomber interceptions

This is the first time I'm hearing about Fresno having F-15's now. Glad they're getting better equipment over those single holes.

deltal1011man · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:47 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

err no. I would generally think it would be the closest aircraft.

I might be wrong but I believe the USAF has around 400-500 active F-15 (C/D/Es) (not sure how many F15s are ANG vs true USAF though.)

and it would be pretty hard for the USAF to us a F-18 FWIW.

Aesma · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:59 am

What's the point of sending a fighter for a bomb threat ?

Uncommunicative plane or 7500 squack, sure, but here I don't see it.

karadion · Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:03 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):

You have to treat these planes as a potential hijacking in progress which may warrant a shoot down. These alert birds are armed.

flightless · Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:13 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 15):
The F-15 is anything but outdated.

If your paycheck or your campaign contributions depend on the F-15 needing to be replaced, then yes, it's waaaay outdated.

The fact that it fills a number of roles at least as well as its replacement does not generate profit for anyone.

ocracoke · Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:24 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 18):
and it would be pretty hard for the USAF to us a F-18 FWIW.

Just as hard as the US Navy flying F15.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
F-15s

Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around.

N766UA · Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:32 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):

Are you serious? F-15's are everywhere in the air force, AD and guard, and they fly a myriad of missions. They're some of the most capable and effective jets out there.

FATFlyer · Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:22 am

Quoting Karadion (Reply 17):
This is the first time I'm hearing about Fresno having F-15's now. Glad they're getting better equipment over those single holes.

The F-15's at Fresno were shifted to the 144th FW from the Montana ANG's 120th FW.

Montana's 120th FW was then converted to the 120th Airlift Wing operating C-130H's.

The F-16's that used to be at the 144th in Fresno were shifted to the Arizona ANG's 162nd Fighter Wing in Tucson.

HPRamper · Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:43 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 10):
Im surprised they used such old equipment. I didn't know the Navy/Air Force still had any around. Or was this the national guard? You would think at this day in age it would at LEAST be an F-16 let alone an F-18

Quoting Redsand187 (Reply 11):
The F15 is the fastest of our fighters, good for intercepting threats.

If an F-14 were mentioned, then yes, that would be talking about an outdated airplane.

The F-14 and F-15 are interceptors. The F-16 and F-18 are fighters. There is a bit of a difference.

spacecadet · Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:35 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 25):
The F-14 and F-15 are interceptors. The F-16 and F-18 are fighters. There is a bit of a difference.

This is starting to get a bit semantic and technical, but that's not totally true. The F-15 was *developed* as an interceptor, but it has taken on a lot more roles these days. There's not really a role that the F-16 performs that the F-15 can't, and the F15 is faster and tougher (it's the only fighter we have that has a perfect combat record). At the time it was retired, the same was true for the F-14, which could perform both interception and air-to-ground missions. The F-14's problem was maintenance costs, mostly due to its swing wings and problematic engines.

These distinctions between front line aircraft aren't as meaningful as they once were. Both the navy and air force want their planes to perform as many mission types as possible, and they've adapted all of their front line jets for multiple roles. A modern "air superiority" fighter can carry more air-to-ground ordnance than a WWII B-17 bomber.

In terms of raw performance, though, the F-15 smokes both the F-16 and F/A-18, and it can carry a greater payload. There's probably not a more capable all-around fighter/attack jet in the world. All it lacks is stealth. And you certainly don't need that to escort a civilian airliner.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):
What's the point of sending a fighter for a bomb threat ?

I can think of a couple reasons:

a) the bombers make a demand that the airplane be flown to a certain spot for unknown reasons

b) the escorts can see anything that happens, e.g. if a bomb actually goes off.

cschleic · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:09 am

Back to the thread title....seems the B6 plane was cleared and everyone went on their way. But this is getting ridiculous.

deltal1011man · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:26 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 19):

remember they had "bombs" on board AA77, UA93, UA 175 and AA11......

basically that is the reason why. (and as someone said it gives you eyes on the bird)

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 25):

If an F-14 were mentioned, then yes, that would be talking about an outdated airplane.

but even for this roll the F14 would have been fine. Hell its not like the A320 is going above the speed of sound. In a worst case you need something that can make that shot. In most cases something that can fly near it.

F9Animal · Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:05 am

The last time they scrambled some F-15's up to Seattle was when Obama was in town. IIRC, a private plane flew into a restricted area near BFI. Anyways, the house shook, and the windows about broke. I heard the trip from PDX to SEA is just a few minutes when they have afterburner on. Can anyone confirm the time it takes?

What is going on with all of these threats lately? Ughhhhhh!!!

deltal1011man · Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:07 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 29):
What is going on with all of these threats lately? Ughhhhhh!!!

stupid people going to be stupid.

Make an example out of a few of them and it ends IMO.....

OMP777X · Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:52 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 29):

Honestly, my personal fear is that they're waiting for the airline security personnel to begin to ignore these types of threats, only to finally follow through with one someday. Then everyone will be pointing the finger at the authorities and the true meaning of terrorism will be understood again by us all.

murchmo · Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:28 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 29):

The last time they scrambled some F-15's up to Seattle was when Obama was in town. IIRC, a private plane flew into a restricted area near BFI. Anyways, the house shook, and the windows about broke. I heard the trip from PDX to SEA is just a few minutes when they have afterburner on. Can anyone confirm the time it takes?

What is going on with all of these threats lately? Ughhhhhh!!!

I was in seattle when this happened. Nothing like a couple sonic booms in the middle of a mellow afternoon to wake you up. It's a matter of minutes for the f-15s to get to seattle. They said the fighters were dispatched at 1:38pm and reached seattle just before 2pm.

richierich · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:41 pm

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 2):
I hope it just a prank. Then I hope they track down these jerks and give them what they deserve.

RDU, ATL and now SEA.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 30):
stupid people going to be stupid.

Make an example out of a few of them and it ends IMO.....

These people can be prosecuted if they live in the USA or a western country. The problem is that you don't need to be in a country with friendly extradition to the USA to make these threats. You can live in Iran and have a twitter account (legally or illegally) and good luck identifying or prosecuting such a person. ** I'm only using this as an example not saying that was what happened here. But there are plenty of other corners of the globe for people to hide.**

Yes, it costs the airlines and the government a lot of money every time a threat is made (scrambling those F-15s is not cheap!) And I really don't see a good alternative because you have to take the threats seriously...

bennett123 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:51 pm

IMO, some of the costs are not real.

After all, without these "alerts", the aircraft would still do practise flights.

Pilots would still need to do flights to stay current.

This is excellent training.

ozark1 · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:23 pm

This is a dumb question, but I don't know anything about Twitter. Can't they track these nutcases down immediately?

F9Animal · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:30 pm

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 35):
This is a dumb question, but I don't know anything about Twitter. Can't they track these nutcases down immediately?

I know the FBI is on it. However, these idiots that do these things probably have state of the art systems to evade. I am sure the FBI will eventually figure it out.

Quoting murchmo (Reply 32):
was in seattle when this happened. Nothing like a couple sonic booms in the middle of a mellow afternoon to wake you up. It's a matter of minutes for the f-15s to get to seattle. They said the fighters were dispatched at 1:38pm and reached seattle just before 2pm

Wow! I would love to take a ride like that! It sure feels a bit more comforting to know they can get here quickly!

lpdal · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:39 pm

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 35):

If they conceal their IP address from whatever they tweeted from, no.

However many people define aynonmity online as withholding their real name. They think they're safe by doing that but in reality either 1) they give out enough information that you could easily suss out their real name (I've seen posters on here claim nobody knows their real name because of their "aviation job", but their name is in several-year-old posts) by example doing a cross check with their Facebook friends or 2) granted they're crafty enough to remain aynonymous, they still can be tracked by site owners or IP address scanners for their IP, which instantly reveals the address that they posted from, and some other info.

My personal opinion is that aynonmizing yourself is only necessary if you're doing stuff online that is illegal and unethical, or that you're not performing your "aviation job" proficiently. If you're a law abiding citizen and doing your job right, there is no excuse to hide within the shadows and hope someone doesn't find out what you're doing on the internet.

As for the F-15s escorting the B6 a/C is that it was a gigantic waste of money and that most likely there was no risk to the aircraft. Yes, 9/11 paranoia and all but let's be real, we probably will never see a tragedy on that scale ever again. There's just too many security measures for it to work, and al-Qaeda leadership is rapidly dissolving. I'm on the side of it's not going to happen again.

-LPDAL

cschleic · Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:53 pm

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 37):
If you're a law abiding citizen and doing your job right, there is no excuse to hide within the shadows and hope someone doesn't find out what you're doing on the internet.

Kind of ignores the idea of privacy, no? If we do away with privacy, then only the bad guys will have it. The idea that we shouldn't complain about all the oversight if we don't have anything to hide doesn't cut it.

lpdal · Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting cschleic (Reply 38):

If someone really wants to find out someone's real name, it really isn't that hard. The first time you signed up for any sort of account on the internet, you gave up any reasonable expectation of privacy.

It's funny, too, because as a computer technician, I can honestly say that people that brag about being anonymous are only kidding themselves. As I said before, most non-computer experts define aynonmity as not giving out their real name, which is comedic gold. Even if they use an IP anonymizer and withold their real name there are still ways to find out who is doing something on a website with just a few clicks.

The idea of the internet being a lawless wasteland where anything goes "doesn't cut it for me". Many people shared that same sentiment and are now behind bars. There are just as many consequences for what is done online as what is done in real life. Just so you know, being on another continent won't protect yourself, either.

-LPDAL

FLY2LIM · Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 35):
This is a dumb question, but I don't know anything about Twitter. Can't they track these nutcases down immediately?

This is a new chapter when it comes to "terrorism" in today's world. You have a whole new slew of technology. Mind you, I'm not even on Twitter, and I certainly abide by all laws. But you can be quite untraceable online. In foreign countries, people have internet access in public places where someone with a "fake" account can make threats endlessly. The American authorities have neither authority nor jurisdiction in any country other than the US. As someone pointed out, a network of troublemakers could do this every single day until the airlines go bankrupt. It's a very serious problem.
One solution would be for airlines to delete their Twitter accounts. Then, there would be no "threat" to them.

FLY2LIM

lpdal · Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:23 pm

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 40):

The American authorities may not have jurisdiction on other continents but you can bet yourself that any EU or other ally will gladly hand over the information of a suspected criminal and arrest them if necessary, most noticeably under digital piracy and illegal pornography laws.

Making a garbage troll account doesn't matter, your IP is still logged.

Perhaps the most famous case was Bin Laden. Thought he was the most aynonmous of them all by using archaic technology and staying off the internet, but we still found him ten years later. As I said before, if someone really wants to find you, they won't let "aynonmity" stand in their way. Most people who claim to be anonymous are very easily traceable with just a few clicks or clues.

On the internet you have no real expectation of privacy and anything posted to it is forever. No one really has "privacy" on here, that is one of the first things I learned while obtaining my cert.

-LPDAL

A332DTW · Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:26 pm

Find them. Charge them with domestic terrorism. Lock them away.

tockeyhockey · Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:48 pm

ok, if twitter can ground a jet, then basically a handful of people could ground every plane currently flying over the US if they had enough browser tabs open.

kind of a frightening prospect, and clearly something that we'll have to fix.

FLY2LIM · Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:07 pm

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 41):
The American authorities may not have jurisdiction on other continents but you can bet yourself that any EU or other ally will gladly hand over the information of a suspected criminal and arrest them if necessary, most noticeably under digital piracy and illegal pornography laws.

Making a garbage troll account doesn't matter, your IP is still logged.

Perhaps the most famous case was Bin Laden. Thought he was the most aynonmous of them all by using archaic technology and staying off the internet, but we still found him ten years later. As I said before, if someone really wants to find you, they won't let "aynonmity" stand in their way. Most people who claim to be anonymous are very easily traceable with just a few clicks or clues.

Choose a country, any country. Let's say Malaysia. Get a group of four friends who have a bone to pick. They steal a laptop and use it in places where there is free wifi. They move around and use random twitter and email accounts. Trust me, it's not as easy to control as you think. And I'm not even that smart.
I believe Bin Laden was traced by intercepted messages that clearly pointed out his location. Again, I am not a security expert. I'm just a regular citizen. But there are people out there with agendas. Look at how many planes have been grounded so far... I hope I'm wrong.
FLY2LIM

OMP777X · Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:27 am

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 37):
However many people define aynonmity online as withholding their real name.

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 39):
As I said before, most non-computer experts define aynonmity as not giving out their real name, which is comedic gold.

You may need to elaborate further for me so that I can understand the point that you're trying to present here completely. Did someone suggest that this threat was traced back to someone using an alias, or possibly their real name? How is this person withholding their real name relevant to them making bomb threats through a Twitter account? IMHO, they obviously aren't going to use a Twitter handle that incorporates their real name into it while making criminal threats, right? In addition, in what way does the interception of a fully loaded airliner that could potentially be facing a terrorist attack constitute a waste of money in your mind?

Off topic: Unless you're making a pun or some sort of an inside joke on here, I'd suggest the use of spell check on your posts. In this particular thread it may be especially beneficial to you since you spell anonymous the correct way at some points during your posts, and incorrectly at other points, some of which you have placed into quotes. It leads me to believe that you're referencing something on here other than "anonymity", which creates additional confusion.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net