This link is to a cnn.com story about a single-engine Cessna ‘forced down’ by federal authorities in Texas. Supposedly there is something cookin re: illegal immigrants or some other such stuff.
My question - how was the plane ‘forced down’? None of the news stories I found on Google mention this. F-16’s doing fly-bys? A heart-felt plea from Ground Control to please, please land? A Grumman Hellcat from the Confederate Air Force putting a burst of .50 cal in front of them?
I cannot think of any way to actually “force” a plane down short of shooting it down. Whether authorities will actually threaten to shoot it down depends on who it is they are chasing but I suspect it would take something of the level of a terrorist for them to go that far. IANAPolice officer but I suspect “forcing” the plane down mostly involves following it and letting the other pilot know they are busted, will not get away and only digging themselves into a longer jail sentence if they don’t do as they are told.
A small plane can be forced to land using helicopters to destablize the air, making it too hard to handle.
The story says it was “intercepted,” so that means probably a DEA Blackhawk. Those things can fly rings around a Cessna.
in 1985 or 86 (sorry, no cite-just my memories), something similar happened in the middle east.
A private civilian jet airliner was forced to change direction and land in Israel , because it’s passenger was suspected of being Carlos, the world’s most-wanted terrorist at the time.
The news reported at the time that there is an official, internationally recognized procedure for intercepting an unarmed aircraft which does not respond to radio instructions.I remember being surprised by a color graphic in Time or Newsweek diagramming the procedure–Who would even think there is a need for such a procedure?
Basically, it consisted of just flying 2 or 3 escorts very,very close to the intercepted plane, alongside and in front of it. Then you wave at the pilot thru the windshield to follow you. |(But there also lots of specific details about altitude and distance between the planes, etc.)
I remember seeing a tv special about the drug war and a helicopter snuck up on a small plane from behind. (this kind of plane had a sort of blind spot directly behind the plane) and then the DEA basically lassoed the plane. A strong cable with a loop was lowered over the tail section. The the 'copter gains altitude and the plane goes into a nose down position and gets dragged back to waiting DEA agents.
Without ripping the tail off? Color me skeptical. “Lassoing” the tail and then threatening to climb away seems possible (though improbable), but I’m wondering if some DEA guy was fantasizing for the cameras.
Um… wasn’t that a James Bond movie?
I think perhaps your 'TV Show" was James Bond: License to Kill
When I began flight training many years ago, when my instructor began to explain the ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) and Customs procedures, he said that an intercept would involve one or more aircraft attempting first to fly alongside of the questionable aircraft while raising them on radio.
If needed, the interceptors would “escalate” by flying in front and above of the other plane, and entering a very gradual descent in order to force the nose of the other plane down. The questionable plane could signal surrender by lowering its landing gear; or, if no gear, turning its landing lights on and off and using radio communications.
If things really get bad, then warning shots might ensue.
I had always assumed that such intercepts would be carried out by fixed wing military aircraft, but there appears to be a growing role for helicopters in such tasks. Here in DC, there are Customs service Black Hawk helicopters that are supposed to do intercepts. (The F-16s from Andrews have been taken off 24/7 air patrols because they are too expensive to run all the time)
A few months ago, I spoke with a Special Operations soldier who is a reservist, and his civilian job a few years back had involved flying intercepts in a helicopter somewhere in the Midwest. He laughed about how he was once ordered to intercept a King Air with his helo. That’s more or less like asking Fat Albert to go catch Carl Lewis because he’s running away. But anyway.
On the whole looping the tail thing: aircraft are each rated with a certain speed above which the aircraft could experience serious damage (i.e., the wings might fall off). If an aircraft were jerked around even near that speed in the manner described, it would not be good. Never mind the absurdity of the simple physics of one aircraft manhandling another, despite them both being roughly the same mass. The helicopter would be as equally tied to the airplane as the airplane would be to the aircraft, and I can’t imagine that it is common for a helicopter to have a payload weight that could carryf a whole frickin’ plane WITH FUEL in addition to the load already on the helicopter.
Empahsis mine. Not only does this only work as a movie stunt but it cannot work as described. Any cable dropped from a helicopter moving with significant airpseed is going to be trailing behind it so the helicopter has to be in front of and ahead of the plane, which makes it easily visible to the plane’s pilot. Did you ever see the pilot transfer in Airport 1975?. Bad acting but an extremely well done stunt. None of this Lucas CGI crap, Joe Canutt acutally did the stunt except for the pilot actually climbing into the 747.
Generally, it’s two or three airplanes (usually Air Force) flying in very close formation and signalling the airplane to land.
Warning shots across the bow are permitted, but very rarely done.
Since 9/11 the Air Force has obtained authorization to shoot down civilian airplanes if circumstances warrant.
Lacking bullets, the wake of a fighter jet traveling at several hundred miles per hour has sufficient force to literally tear apart some of the smaller single-engine civilian airplanes. Such things have occured by accident to civilian airplanes straying into areas where figher jets are operating.
Why do we need such procedures? Because the categories of “pilot” and “criminal” are not mutally exclusive - regrettably, there is some overlap.
For specific procedures consult the Aeronautical Information Manual, available from several publishers, for what the FAA feels pilots need to know. Most libraries I have been in have a copy. Regretably, I could not find an on-line source that didn’t require some sort of membership or registration.
The following link is from the AOPA website and details the intercept procedure.
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2001/010918intercept.html
Look,
It was several years ago.
It was some ‘news’ program where someone like Joan London or someone like that goes out with people who do cool things for a living like fly U2 spy planes or intercept drug runners.
Maybe I don’t recall correctly.
Maybe the DEA types were ‘showing off’. If I do recall correctly, they showed a training version and not an actual capture so the pilot of the plane was aware of what was going to happen.
**Padeye,
**
A small Cessna has a signifcantly lower crusing speed than a comercial jet.
Danalan, Scruloose,
I’m not a particular James Bond fan. I’m not sure if I have seen that one or not. Maybe it is possible the writers got the idea from real life.
Maybe the young folks never knew this, but all this intercept procedure stuff dates from the 1950s when the West & the Soviets were ready to start WW-III at the drop of a hat.
International meetins were convened to make up some procedures for when their fighters met up with our airliners / tankers / bombers in international, or worse, disputed airspace. Or our fighters with their heavies, the shenanigans were mutual.
Piddling stuff like drug or illegal alien smuggling, and really stupid stuff like suicide hijackings, was 40 years in the future then.
There are a similar set of treaties addressing the procedures for what to do when the Navy wants your freighter to stop & be boarded, or diverted to a port.
Gotta agree with everyone else. This may have been some kind of hypothetical, maybe-in-the-future demonstration, but it’ll never happen. Aircraft simply do not ‘lasso’ each other with cables and live to tell about it. Even towing unpowered gliders in smoothe, level, cooperative flight is one of the more dangerous things you can do in the air.
Seen tons of footage of this. In one, the smugglers simply refused all commands to stop, so the Coast Guard or Navy ship told them over the PA they had 15 minutes to get everyone as far forward as possible. After which they opened fire on the ship’s stern. That made them stop. 
I am also skeptical but I don’t think it is beyond the realm of possibility. As long as the helicopter accelerated the tail slow enough. I am assuming that the force of the propellers is not enough to rip the plane apart if the tail is held fixed.
If the cable was of sufficient density it could work. Then again how often to pilots look would we be in essence almost directly above their plane.
I would say this move would be exceedingly dangerous and extremely difficult to pull off but I bet you it could work.
I’m going to call foul on this, too.
First of all, there are too many small airplanes that are faster than helicopters. The chopper can’t “sneak up on it” because it’ll never catch it.
But, assuming a situation where the airplane is slow and the helicoptor fast - you then have the problem that the loop of the lasso will trail behind the pair, getting over the airplane tail will be a problem. Keep in mind, the tail structures can be in the nine foot range - that’s a really big lasso you’re talking about.
But, let’s go out on a limb and assume you get that done - you now have two problems: is the tail of the airplane strong enough to support the weight of the airplane when suspended in that manner, and is the helicoptor capable of lifting that much weight/proceeding forward with that much drag? Airplane structures are not uniformly strong - they are only strong where they need to be. The skin and outer structure of the airplane will certainly crush (the skin of a small airplane is typically required to withstand 60 lbs of force and no more) and since there is usually no internal structure to speak of, the tail of the airplane will fall off and everyone aboard will die in the subsequent impact with the ground. Aside from specialty helicopters designed for construction projects, helicopters don’t have impressive payload capability. There is also the matter of balancing that weight - hard to do when the weight is swinging free on the end of a rope - so you can retain control of the helicoptor.
It’s a cool idea, I just don’t think it would work in the real world.
Since 9/11 helicopters have become more commonly used as intercepters - for small aircraft. An F-16 flies too fast to be useful when dealing with the likes of a Piper Cub or Cessna 150 or ultralight… helicopters can slow down to the speed of those very small, slow fixed wing aircraft. But I can’t imagine a chopper trying to lasso even one of those.
And I think you need to stress the term cooperation here - the person in the towed glider is flying just as actively as the guy in the airplane doing the towing (I speak from experience). Both parties have to cooperate to prevent a hazardous situation. The tow rope also has a designed weak point so it will snap before certain forces build up sufficiently to damage either aircraft. This level of cooperation will simply not exist in an intercept situation.
Wow, bunch of problems here.
First of all, the tail of most small airplanes will simply not withstand that abuse – it will tear off. It’s not designed to withstand forces of that magnitude at that angle. I’ve airplane tails heavily damaged by a low-speed impact with a hangar or other airplane, and that’s considerably less force than your proposed manuver would cause. I realize this may puzzle people, given that the tail winds up generating considerable force on the airplane while manuvering even in normal flight, but the while the structure is designed to withstand those forces it’s not designed to withstand forces along other vectors. I’m not sure I can explain this clearly, so maybe someone else can take a shot at it.
Second, the guys in the airplane aren’t going to cooperate - if you take your time pulling the tail vertical it gives them time to use their controls to pull and yank on the cable. This will be bad for both them and the helicoptor guys - folks hoisting loads with helicopters, whether for construction work or rescue - are doing a difficult job with significant risks. Screwing up can get you killed, and there is evidence on film of just that.
Compared to that, reducing the risk of the rotor downwash causing problems is relatively simple - use a longer cable.
But then it would weigh more, wouldn’t it? Aircraft have limited capacity to carry weight.
You may wish to rephrase that so it’s more clear what you’re asking.
I’m betting it couldn’t.
Not that this really relates to anything on topic, but I do recall seeing a documentary about some folks parachuting from a light plane; apparently one of them panicked and deployed his parachute while he was still halfway out of the door; it became entangled in the tail structures and slowed the plane to a stall. The parachute was apparently sufficiently open that the plane actually descended (as opposed to just dropping like a rock) and the parachutist and pilot survived the descent (with fairly minor injuries, IIRC).
I also seem to remember there being actual footage of the incident, shot from the ground; it might have been a reconstruction, although I’m not sure how you’d stage such a thing (this was before the time when it could have been realistically faked with computer graphics).