# Why no jets launched against hijacked planes on 9/11? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161 "2003-10-07T21:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/41 "2003-10-08T22:56:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sandythecur \* > \*\*And then there’s my acquaintance who believes wholeheartedly that the plane in Pennsylvania WAS shot down because they knew terrorists were aboard, and the whole “let’s roll” thing and all the heroes aboard were invented as a nice story to make us all cry and love our country more. \*\* You know, I’ve wondered about this myself. I’ve heard that the debris from the plane was scattered over a very large area, which, to me, makes little sense if the plane was intact when it crashed. (But I have not studied the issue, nor am I in any way an expert on plane crash forensics.) If they _did_ shoot it down, I don’t think the purpose in saying that the passengers crashed it was to “make us all cry and love our country more” but to spare the families. It’s more comforting to think that a loved one died a hero, rather than ignominiously being blown from the sky. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/42 "2003-10-08T23:18:55Z")
Um, by the time they could get everything organized to launch a jet against the hijacked planes, I would imagine that everything had already occurred. I can’t see them being able to do this in time. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/43 "2003-10-09T00:18:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*What IS the neo conservative agenda? \*\* [http://www.newamericancentury.org/](http://www.newamericancentury.org/) > [@](#): > > The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/44 "2003-10-09T00:31:43Z")
> [@](#): > > _rjung:_ > On the other hand, I do believe that some members of the Administration suspected that some sort of airline-related terrorism plot was in the works, and didn’t work vigorously enough to try and stop it. Wasn’t it John Ashcroft who abruptly refused to travel by commercial airlines several weeks before 9/11 because of those activities? I’d ask for a cite for this one, but even if it’s true, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Isn’t it possible – just possible – that the Attorneys General rarely fly commercial anyways? Can you imagine what it would be like for John Ashcroft if he got sandwiched between you and **elucidator** on some Southwest Airlines flight? In fact, I’m willing to wager that it’s standard operating procedure for Attorneys General to fly private airlines. As for your assertion that the Administration suspected a terrorist attack, are you aware that the [Solicitor General’s wife was killed](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/11/911.wrap/) in one of the 9/11 attacks? Did he not get the memo? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/45 "2003-10-09T04:02:47Z")
I’m still waiting for you to refute anything that I’ve said, **Reeder**. Or **Roger Mexico**. Or is common sense just not compatible with your Bush hatred? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/46 "2003-10-09T04:07:16Z")
The big claim that the article in the OP is making is that **over an hour** passed between the time the first hijacking was suspected and the time the first fighter interceptor was in the air. The article then goes on to claim that on 67 prior occasions during the previous year, fighter planes were launched to chase suspicious aircraft. My big question here is: In the case of those 67 prior occasions, **how much time** went by between the time the aircraft became suspicious and the fighters were in the air to chase it, on average? Was a scramble time of 1 hour (as on Sept. 11th) typical, or was 20-30 minutes more the norm? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/47 "2003-10-09T08:15:18Z")
No lover of the PNAC am I, but I tried to get to the bottom of the assertion that **Mr B** repeats - namely one of them said to further its agenda it needed “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” - and I found no source for this quote apart from leftist agitation sites. If someone can find the actual quote, I’d be interested to see it, but on the evidence that I could come up with, I had to conclude it’s bogus. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/48 "2003-10-09T08:28:10Z")
Also, I asked a similar question to **tracer’s** earlier in this thread - anyone got any data? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/49 "2003-10-09T09:23:03Z")
**vanilla** , and everyone else in this thread, to truly understand what the neocons are about, please read “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that I linked earlier in this thread. It’s a very long document, but I don’t think anyone should discuss Bush’s foreign policy unless they’ve read the document, published in 2000, that sets out the manifesto for the people who make up much of his administration. It doesn’t make for comfortable reading, IMO. OK I’ll shut up for a while now. Too much coffee. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/50 "2003-10-09T09:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*No lover of the PNAC am I, but I tried to get to the bottom of the assertion that **Mr B** repeats - namely one of them said to further its agenda it needed “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” - and I found no source for this quote apart from leftist agitation sites. If someone can find the actual quote, I’d be interested to see it, but on the evidence that I could come up with, I had to conclude it’s bogus. \*\* How hard did you look? [Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century](http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) (warning, .PDF) > [@](#): > > Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/51 "2003-10-09T09:53:27Z")
Well I’ll be… I searched all the way through that using Acrobat… poo. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/52 "2003-10-09T10:37:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > However, there is something he said that I’d like clarified: > > > [@](#): > > > > Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate. > > What is the truth behind this? I gather there were actually planes in the air about 20 minutes after the first WTC strike, contrary to Meacher’s assertions. But were there 67 prior occasions? How did they differ from 9-11? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > The big claim that the article in the OP is making is that over an hour passed between the time the first hijacking was suspected and the time the first fighter interceptor was in the air. > > The article then goes on to claim that on 67 prior occasions during the previous year, fighter planes were launched to chase suspicious aircraft. > > My big question here is: In the case of those 67 prior occasions, how much time went by between the time the aircraft became suspicious and the fighters were in the air to chase it, on average? Was a scramble time of 1 hour (as on Sept. 11th) typical, or was 20-30 minutes more the norm? I’ve attempted to explain this so often in the past 2 years that I’m thinking of coming up with boilerplate for it. First of all, let cover what a flight plan is and isn’t, and when it is and isn’t required. A flight plan is nothing more or less than a statement that “Airplane X [description] will travel from point A to B along this route on this day and time”. There are a couple details like alternate destination if you can’t reach the first choice, but essentially that’s it. A flight plan is required any time you fly on instruments (in which case it also serves as a reservation for time and attention from air traffic control). It is required of all airliners whether the weather requires instrument flight or “visual flight rules”. It is NOT required if you’re a private citizen flying in clear weather that doesn’t require instruments to navigate (which means there are a lot of flights that don’t require flight plans at all) although one is recommended if you’re going a significant distance so if you crash rescue crews have some idea where to look for you. A flight is also required to cross an international border. That’s it (at least prior to 9/11). Planes do deviate from flight plans for a number of reasons. First of all, if you filed a VFR flight plan (that’s the optional one) and deviate from it likely no one will care (at least prior to 9/11), particularly if you’re way out in the middle of nowhere. If you’re on an IFR (instrument flight plan) air traffic control will notice you’ve deviated. They will not, however, automatically launch fighter jets. First, they will try to talk to you and determine if there is a problem. Maybe you’ve had an instrument failure and you’re lost in the clouds. Maybe you have a carbon monoxide leak and everyone aboard is unconcious or disoriented. _In the vast majority of deviations from flight plan there is NO hijacking involved._. So air traffic willl try to establish radio contact and ask if you’re having a problem (they may be gruff about this, but if you ARE having a problem they will help you as much as they can). If there is no response yes, they will send someone to investigate - but not necessarially a fighter jet. If there is another plane nearby that is capable of matching the problem plane’s speed they may ask the pilot of the second plane to go to the first plane and see if there is anything visibly wrong. There was an incident (reported in _Reader’s Digest_, among other places) over Chicago where air traffic lost contact with an airplane directly over the city and also over a cloud bank. Seems the plane had lost all electrical systems - no radio, and a bunch of instruments not working, so no way to safely get through the cloud layer to an airport, and no way to call for help. Another, civilian plane was asked if he could see the plane that wasn’t responding to air traffic and asked to help out. The second plane and the first plane were able to establish some sort of rudimentary communication, and the plane with the problem simply followed the second plane through the clouds to an airport and a safe landing. No fighter jets required. And, more or less, this was the norm before 9/11. The vast majority of significant deviations from a flight involve someone with a problem, not a hijacking. No one was _required_ to send _military aircraft_, although it has certainly always been an option. Even when a fighter jet was sent up, it was with the intention to _investigate_, and the assumption was that _probably_ there were people in distress but not necessarially foul play. Really, an intercept is analogous to being pulled over by a state trooper on the freeway. It’s not something you look forward to, but it’s not a dogfight with guns blazing, either. The only time you’re really going to get in trouble is if you attempt to flee, running from the cops making you at least _look_ guilty. MOST of the time, when someone falls off their flight plan it’s because _they have a problem_. I can’t emphasize that enough. 67 intercepts in one year could easily be accounted for by folks with instrument trouble wandering around lost, one or two pilots having a problem (hypoxia, food poisoing, whatever), folks wandering into military airspace where fighters happen to already be up and flying and available, and drug runners trying to sneak over the border (the latter typically do not file flight plans, of course, but they can be and sometimes are intercepted). Now, the vast majority of airplanes - even small airplanes - have a device called a “transponder” which can be used to signal a hijacking. On 9/11, though, the transponders were _not_ used in this manner, they were simply turned off - and to air traffic that looks like an _instrument failure_. Given past experience, they assume an airplane in distress, not a hijacking. So they spent significant time trying to establish radio contact, asking other planes in the vicinity if they could spot a plane in trouble, etc. This was done _delibrately_ by the hijackers to buy time for their plans - they were exploiting their knowledge of the system. Remember - these guys had earned their pilots’ licenses here in the US, they knew the systems as well as any pilot, and they knew how air traffic would react to a suddenly silent 757. They knew air traffic would assume electrical or mechanical trouble, not hijacking, at least at first, and would not issue an alarm to the calvary for some time. They were evil people, but not stupid. So, to sum up the questions about those 67 aircraft deviating from flight plan and how long until the fighters were scrambled - the answer is, in many cases NO fighter jets were _ever_ scrambled, those 67 are just the few cases where the jets were used. The time interval between coming to someone’s attention and being intercepted - a minute or two if they were in an area where jets where handy and already flying, maybe hours if air traffic first went through trying to call on the radio, get other planes in the vicinity to help, etc. And there was at least one case a number of years ago where an escaping prisoner hijacked a small, four seat airplane and the fighters were _never_ scrambled - sheriff cars and helicoptors simply followed the small plane until it was forced to land through running out of gas and the Bad Guy was recaptured. So, at least in the past, there was considerable flexibility in how situations were handled. Fighters were an option, not a mandate. Nowadays, the jets go up much more rapidly and with less “provocation” - but most (if not all) intercepts are still either folks in distress, folks who are lost, or smugglers. So far as I know, no one has actually been shot at (yet). ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2003, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/53 "2003-10-09T10:44:11Z")
Thanks for the explanation - though I should point out your second quote was from **tracer** , not me. I do recall reports that there was a commercial airliner that was asked to eyeball one of the 9-11 planes. ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/54 "2003-10-10T04:00:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > \*\*Planes do deviate from flight plans for a number of reasons. First of all, if you filed a VFR flight plan (that’s the optional one) and deviate from it likely no one will care \*\*They won’t care. They won’t even know about it, unless you are late or let them know. > [@](#): > > **If you’re on an IFR (instrument flight plan) air traffic control will notice you’ve deviated.** You are not expected to adhere to your IFR flight plan. You are expected to follow your clearance. The two are NOT the same. I don’t recall ever making an IFR flight where I followed my filed flight plan exactly. > [@](#): > > \*\*So air traffic willl try to establish radio contact and ask if you’re having a problem (they may be gruff about this, but if you ARE having a problem they will help you as much as they can). > > If there is no response yes, they will send someone to investigate \*\*No, they won’t. In case of a two-way communications failure in IMC, ATC expects you to comply with 91.185, which states: > [@](#): > > \*© IFR conditions. If the failure occurs in IFR conditions, or if > paragraph (b) of this section cannot be complied with, each pilot shall > continue the flight according to the following: > > (1) **Route.** > (i) By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received; > > (ii) If being radar vectored, by the direct route from the point of radio > failure to the fix, route, or airway specified in the vector clearance; > > (iii) In the absence of an assigned route, by the route that ATC has > advised may be expected in a further clearance; or > > (iv) In the absence of an assigned route or a route that ATC has advised > may be expected in a further clearance, by the route filed in the flight > plan.\* Note that following the flight plan is your very last option. That covers the route you follow. Now, for your altitude: > [@](#): > > \*(2) **Altitude.** At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels > for the route segment being flown: > > (i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance > received; > > (ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight > level as prescribed in Sec. |91.121|©) for |IFR| operations; or > > (iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a > further clearance.\* You do not fly your filed altitude. Unless it just coincidentally happens to be the highest of the three listed above. Now, in the case of two-way communications failure while IFR in VMC, 91.185 states: > [@](#): > > \*(b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR > conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the > flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable. \*You DO NOT follow your flight plan. You will be breaking the regs if you do. > [@](#): > > **So, to sum up the questions about those 67 aircraft deviating from flight plan and how long until the fighters were scrambled - the answer is, in many cases NO fighter jets were _ever_ scrambled, those 67 are just the few cases where the jets were used.** Your VFR information is correct, but your IFR stuff is way off. Deviating from an IFR flight plan is routine. Deviating from a clearance is not, and I think that’s where the confusion is coming in. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/55 "2003-10-10T07:58:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?** While the rest of the post has been delt with, I think I’ll address this little segment. Why? Because it’s the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists will grab onto some _seemingly_ important factoid as prooving their point, despite all other, reasonable information to the contrary. [Andrews Air Force base](http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/andrewsunits.html) is home to the 89th Airlift Wing and the Presidential Airlift Group (In addition to the 89th Communications Group, 89th Logistics Group, 89th Medical Group, 89th Opperations Group, and 89th Support Group). So what would you propose they intercept those airliners with? A C-137? C-32? Maybe they could send up the VC-25 (Better known as “Airforce One” when the prez is riding)? …Or maybe it would be better to call a _fighter_ squadron to do an intercept… ---
**Author:** ![telesis2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@telesis2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/telesis2001)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/56 "2003-10-10T08:24:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Telemark \* > \*\*No one knew what was going on, they hadn’t contemplated actions that would require ordering jets into the air to fire on commercial airliners on US soil. It was an unprecedented event, and the reactions were understandably slow. \*\* Does the name Payne Stewart mean anything to you? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/57 "2003-10-10T09:11:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Does the name Payne Stewart mean anything to you? I think **Broomstick** deals with this. Payne Stewart was not flying a commercial airliner. And while jets were eventually scrambled, I don’t think it was that quick. The plane stayed in the air for HOURS after everyone on board lost consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![yola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/48db29/32.png) [@yola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yola)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/58 "2003-10-10T09:29:59Z")
It was a surprise attack. Overcoming pilots on a routine morning flight inside US air space simotaneously caught our flight suits getting their zipper fixed at the cleaners. Saving on fuel at an inopportune time on agreeable airspace allowed the cheapskates in the pentagon to get hit. What a blow to our brain nerves. Here the Pentagon in its glory gets pentagrated at the center on a leisurely can’t wait till I retire and get out of this hell hole kind of day. How embarrassing for them. They didn’t have a clue to what was going on. Herd of elephants. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/59 "2003-10-10T10:43:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Berkut \* > Your VFR information is correct, but your IFR stuff is way off. Deviating from an IFR flight plan is routine. Deviating from a clearance is not, and I think that’s where the confusion is coming in. Two points, my friend. 1. I am a VFR pilot, not an IFR pilot. You should have been able to figure that out. 2. Because I assume I am talking to non-pilot’s, and because I didn’t want to go on for pages and pages, I simplified. Is that OK with you? I do wish to clarify, at least in my own mind, a few items you brought up: > [@](#): > > You are not expected to adhere to your IFR flight plan. You are expected to follow your clearance. The two are NOT the same. I don’t recall ever making an IFR flight where I followed my filed flight plan exactly. As I said, I simplified. While I am aware of the difference between a flight plan and a clearance, the general public is not. Heck, the general public barely has a grasp what just a flight plan is. As I said, I am trying to speak to a general audience here that is not familar with pilot jargon, the regs, or any form of flying not involving sitting in the back of an airline waiting for soft drinks and peanuts to be served. And just for the record, I can’t think of any flight where I followed my flight plan exactly, either. Guess that’s why they call it a _plan_ rather than a prediction or statement of fact. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So air traffic willl try to establish radio contact and ask if you’re having a problem (they may be gruff about this, but if you ARE having a problem they will help you as much as they can). > > > > If there is no response yes, they will send someone to investigate > > No, they won’t. In case of a two-way communications failure in IMC, ATC expects you to comply with 91.185, which states: First of all, having been listening on the radio at time or two when someone went NORDO, there is a very human tendency to yell “Hello? Can you hear me? Are you ignoring me?” or some variant . I was personally witness to a situation in controlled airspace where a plane was not responding to air traffic and behaving very oddly and yes, the controllers _did_ attempt to establish radio contact, switch frequences, ask other airplanes to observe this character, etc. If you flip your transponder to the radio failure code no, air traffic isn’t going to spend time wondering what happened. They might still transmit at you, hoping you can receive even if you can’t send. But the questions I was answering were (at least to me) about situations involving possible hijacking or odd behavior in airplanes, not situations where someone is following procedures to the letter. Again, I was simplifying in hopes of being brief in my comments. Sorry if that provoke any confusion. > [@](#): > > Now, in the case of two-way communications failure while IFR in VMC, 91.185 states: > > > [@](#): > > > > (b) VFR conditions. If the failure occurs in VFR conditions, or if VFR > > conditions are encountered after the failure, each pilot shall continue the flight under VFR and land as soon as practicable. > > You DO NOT follow your flight plan. You will be breaking the regs if you do Um… I’ve re-read my post and I can’t see where I was describing anything that specific. In the incident where someone ran into trouble over Chicago, it was a situation where the cloud cover (which, yes, they were above, presumably in VMC a.k.a. flight-by-vision conditions, rather than instrument) was so extensive they would not have been able to reach an airport that wasn’t socked in before their fuel ran out - which knowledge was available to air traffic due to the information in the system about their time aloft and how much fuel they took off with. Sooner or later you have to land. Sometimes (rarely, I hope) you have to go through clouds or fog to do this. Yeah, it’s a bad situation, that’s why you’re told to avoid it. And, without question, the 9/11 hijackings didn’t occur in instrument flight conditions - the whole day was VFR over almost the entire country. There are a myriad variables involved in any situation where something goes seriously wrong in the air. A pilot even has the option of landing in someone’s backyard if that seems the option with the highest chance of survival (although you may have some explaining to do after the fact…) I tried to keep the post brief, and if I oversimplified I apologize, but sometimes it’s hard to “translate” into “general public” when you’re used to “pilot gobbledegook” without tripping over details. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2003, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161/60 "2003-10-10T10:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > Thanks for the explanation - though I should point out your second quote was from **tracer** , not me. You’re welcome, and sorry about the misattribution - that’s what I get for posting at 4:30 am most days, along with spelling errors. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-jets-launched-against-hijacked-planes-on-9-11/206161.md?page=4)