# The F-16 pilots that were going to ram flight 93. Survivable? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 18, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494 "2017-03-18T18:07:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quintas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/48db29/32.png) [@Quintas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quintas)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/1 "2017-03-18T18:07:14Z")
Article : [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50\_story.html?utm\_term=.1d35acff36ed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50_story.html?utm_term=.1d35acff36ed) Would bringing down flight 93 down in that manner require a definite suicide attack? Would they have had to ram the airliner at full speed, or could they have clipped the wings or tail and then eject? Also, it sees that ramming an airliner and having it come down who knows where doesn’t seem very helpful. They knew it was a suicide mission on the way to Washington. Evacuating the most likely targets seems more logical. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/2 "2017-03-18T18:17:59Z")
A more important question is, would it have been survivable for the passengers? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/3 "2017-03-18T18:26:46Z")
> [@Quintas](#): > > Also, it sees that ramming an airliner and having it come down who knows where doesn’t seem very helpful. They knew it was a suicide mission on the way to Washington. Evacuating the most likely targets seems more logical. Not knowing what the target was, or would be in the final moments, makes that pretty difficult when you have less than an hour to work with. The flight was over largely rural areas as well, making a takedown far safer and with lower potential casualties a sensible option. Yes, it could have hit a high-density target, but the casualties involved in hitting central DC - White House, Capitol probably - would have likely been worse. And, sad to say, the destruction of a truly honored American landmark would have been far worse on top of the casualties. But “they rolled” and took the choice out of any third party’s hands. Remember them. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/4 "2017-03-18T18:29:19Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > A more important question is, would it have been survivable for the passengers? Is this a rhetorical question? ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/5 "2017-03-18T18:32:54Z")
> [@dofe](#): > > Is this a rhetorical question? Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. ---
**Author:** ![dofe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ba0ec/32.png) [@dofe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dofe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/6 "2017-03-18T18:34:34Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. So the answer to my question is yes? Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/7 "2017-03-18T18:41:15Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. Nobody’s “okay” with it, but it might have been a realistic sacrifice to make. During the other 911 attacks, almost three thousand people died. It could be a valid moral choice to kill 40 innocents to save unknown thousands of people. It is almost certainly a valid strategic choice (but utilitarianism is not a universal moral system.) The legality is harder to assess. It involves making a deliberate choice to kill innocent citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/8 "2017-03-18T18:42:37Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. Innocent civilians who were dead the minute the terrorists took over the plane. There was no realistic scenario for how that flight ended that didn’t end up with them dead. Even their attempt to re-take the plane was a low-probability desperation play. Triage is never pleasant, but it’s also absolutely necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/9 "2017-03-18T19:24:40Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. This level of absolutism sounds all well & good–until one considers what it actually means in context. If we consider a situation in which the passengers either did nothing or failed, thus necessitating the use of the F-16, your logic falls apart. The options are either the military acts & ~40 civilians die (number fluctuates depending on where the plane actually comes down) or the military doesn’t act & a few hundred to a couple thousand civilians die, including the aforementioned 40. There really is no in-between. The only realistic scenario is that those 40 people died–the only question is in how many others went with them. “1 life is too many” really doesn’t work as a stance when there’s no chance of saving that one life. Yes, it sucks. I’m sure that, if they survived, the F-16 pilots would likely have trauma related problems from it. But the title of the thread is “The F-16 pilots that were going to ram flight 93. Survivable?”, not “Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil?”, which would likely end up in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/10 "2017-03-18T20:10:49Z")
An airplane is designed to continue straight and level without input from the pilot so it would seem that you could set the F-16 on its course and eject. As long as you do it close enough there is no chance the airliner could get out of the way in time. I wonder though if you could fly below and infront of the wings and create a low pressure area causing the plane to lose lift. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/11 "2017-03-18T20:32:48Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > An airplane is designed to continue straight and level without input from the pilot so it would seem that you could set the F-16 on its course and eject. This brings up an interesting question for me. My understanding of modern-ish fighters is that they’re flown mostly by computer, with inputs from the pilot. At least, that’s the simplified explanation provided by my then-AF ROTC instructors. If that is the case, would the plane allow that to happen or would it do what it could to land as soon as there was no pilot present behind the controls? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/12 "2017-03-18T23:44:58Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > . . . I wonder though if you could fly below and infront of the wings and create a low pressure area causing the plane to lose lift. Even more scary is to overlap wings to cause the other craft to roll. (Did WWII British pilots really do that to buzz bombs, or is that a legend?) (Apparently, they actually clipped the V1s, tipping them by hitting them with their plane’s wings. That’s even more gutsy…and wouldn’t work in the 911 scenario.) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/13 "2017-03-18T23:50:27Z")
Maybe the F-16s could fly in front of the hijacked Boeing in order to create wake turbulence, as someone else mentioned, especially if one also uses the engine’s exhaust as a weapon. I once read in Newsweek that before the 2001 EP-3 spy plane Hainan incident, a Chinese fighter pilot once flew so close in front of an American reconnaissance airplane that his engine exhaust left scorch marks on the U.S. plane’s windshield, so there’s some potential there, too. Or how about making the F-16 “sit” on one of the Boeing’s wings? Just have the F-16 literally sit on one of the wings. Surely that would put the Boeing out of control. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/14 "2017-03-18T23:52:07Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Are you okay with the US military killing its own citizens on American soil? I’m not. There were 44 people on the flight 93, including 4 highjackers. This means there were also 40 innocent civilians onboard. As opposed to the hijacked Boeing ramming into the Capitol, or White House, or some other target, in which case those 40 innocent civilians die anyway regardless, \*\*\*AND \*\*\*some more innocent civilians on the ground die too? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/15 "2017-03-19T01:27:02Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > An airplane is designed to continue straight and level without input from the pilot so it would seem that you could set the F-16 on its course and eject. As long as you do it close enough there is no chance the airliner could get out of the way in time. It’s not really that simple. In general an airplane is designed to be stable so it will _tend_ to return to its original state after being disrupted, but that doesn’t mean it will fly perfectly straight and level. On the other hand the F16 is fly-by-wire which means it doesn’t follow the physical rules of aerodynamic stability and could conceivably stay exactly how you left it. It depends on how assertive the FBW system is. **LSLGuy**? Another issue is that the act of ejecting will cause some disruption to the flight path. > [@](#): > > I wonder though if you could fly below and infront of the wings and create a low pressure area causing the plane to lose lift. This is basically using the wake to disrupt the following aircraft. An F16 is not going to be heavy enough to cause enough wake turbulence to do anything other than cause a bit of a bump for the airliner. > [@Debillw3](#): > > This brings up an interesting question for me. > > My understanding of modern-ish fighters is that they’re flown mostly by computer, with inputs from the pilot. At least, that’s the simplified explanation provided by my then-AF ROTC instructors. > > If that is the case, would the plane allow that to happen or would it do what it could to land as soon as there was no pilot present behind the controls? Not my area of expertise but I believe the F16 was designed to be unstable, or at least in designing it to be manoeuvrable, stability had to be sacrificed. The instability makes it difficult to fly manually so it has fly-by-wire where the pilots inputs are sent to a computer/s which make the required control inputs to give the result the pilot commanded. It does not have any sort of AI function that will make any decisions if the pilot is suddenly not present. In short, no, it wouldn’t try and land with no pilot at the controls. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/16 "2017-03-19T01:42:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > Not my area of expertise but I believe the F16 was designed to be unstable, or at least in designing it to be manoeuvrable, stability had to be sacrificed. The instability makes it difficult to fly manually so it has fly-by-wire where the pilots inputs are sent to a computer/s which make the required control inputs to give the result the pilot commanded. It does not have any sort of AI function that will make any decisions if the pilot is suddenly not present. > > In short, no, it wouldn’t try and land with no pilot at the controls. Much obliged! I was too embarrassed to be the only one in class who asked that question, as everyone else seemed to already understand the topic. I’m glad to finally understand the what & why. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/17 "2017-03-19T02:01:27Z")
> [@Debillw3](#): > > Much obliged! > > I was too embarrassed to be the only one in class who asked that question, as everyone else seemed to already understand the topic. > > I’m glad to finally understand the what & why. **LSLGuy** flew F16s so he’d have much better info than me if he wanders through. I’m just a civilian pilot who had an interest in fighter jets when I was a boy. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/18 "2017-03-19T02:07:51Z")
If there were two, could they do a close leading escort, positioning in front of the jetliner’s engines in order to use their exhaust to starve them of oxygen? What is the stall speed of an F-16? ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/19 "2017-03-19T02:16:31Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > If there were two, could they do a close leading escort, positioning in front of the jetliner’s engines in order to use their exhaust to starve them of oxygen? As I’ve shown already, I don’t know a lot about the mechanics of planes beyond the basics (or any type of engine, for that matter), but if the hijacker was aware of what was going on, couldn’t they avoid the problem by just slightly altering their altitude? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494/20 "2017-03-19T03:06:17Z")
What about getting behind the airliner and setting the autopilot on and any collision avoidance (if there is any) off. Terrorists won’t be able to see you. Increase throttle until the closure rate is such that it will impact, if the airliner doesn’t change course, in 30 seconds. Eject. The part that I don’t know if it will work is I don’t know if the autopilot will maintain course or even keep working after ejection, or some system will turn it off. In theory, though, the fighter would hit the tail section of the airliner, fatally disabling it and thus limiting the casualties to everyone onboard and anyone in the rural area below who are hit. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-f-16-pilots-that-were-going-to-ram-flight-93-survivable/782494.md?page=2)