< Five at 8 - 9/23/09: Your first Internet moments | Main | Sleeping seen as more likely explanation for Flight 188 >

Flight 188: Making it add up

Posted at 11:22 AM on October 23, 2009 by Bob Collins (30 Comments)
Filed under: Northwest Airlines

In the aftermath of the wayward Northwest Flight 188, the initial pilots' stories aren't the only ones that don't add up. Another is the reasons given for not intercepting the plane as a potential terrorist threat.

By now you've probably seen the terse press release from the North American Air Defense Command explaining its role: PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. - Fighters from two North American Aerospace Defense Command sites were put on alert yesterday for a Northwest Airlines commercial airliner that was not responding to radio calls from the Federal Aviation Administration. Before the fighters could get airborne, FAA re-established communications with the pilots of the Northwest Airlines commercial airliner and subsequently, the NORAD fighters were ordered to stand down. NORAD does not discuss locations of alerts sites. No further information will be provided as the National Transportation Safety Board is continuing its investigation.

NORAD is the bi-national Canadian and American command that is responsible for the air defense of North America and maritime warning. The command has three subordinate regional headquarters: the Alaskan NORAD Region at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; the Canadian NORAD Region at Winnipeg, Manitoba; and the Continental NORAD Region at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. The command is poised to provide a multilayered defense to detect, deter and prevent potential threats from flying over the airspace of the United States and Canada.

NORAD's mission is carried out in close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners.

Like so many other elements of the story, things don't add up.

A silent jetliner is heading toward a major American city and the military didn't intercept it. Why not? The threat the situation posed was demonstrated clearly on 9/11. "Before the fighters could get airborne, FAA re-established communications with the pilots of the Northwest Airlines commercial airliner and subsequently."
Based on the facts that have been released, this sentence in the press release suggests there was a significant delay in the time between the FAA knew the plane was in an uncertain situation, and the time it took for the military to be informed and/or respond.

According to officials, the plane stopped talking to controllers while it was over Kansas. The plane's flight path, however, only took it over a sliver of Kansas, specifically over Goodland, Kansas. The plane was over Goodland at 7:03 p.m. on Wednesday evening, while it was still under the direction of air traffic controllers in Colorado.

According to the plane's flight record, it did not change its flight path until 8:15 p.m., when we can safely assume the pilots either (a) stopped fighting with each other or (b) woke up and realized what was happening.

The fact that NORAD says the flight wasn't intercepted because by the time fighter jets could be launched, Minneapolis controllers re-established contact, invites us to see when the jets could have intercepted the airliner.

NORAD won't say where the fighters were stationed that were "on alert," but it's not hard to figure out. Madison has the most active Air National Guard base in the Upper Midwest. Indeed, CNN confirms that Madison was the base on alert.

Goodland, Kansas, is 600 miles by air. The jet didn't pass over Minneapolis St. Paul until 7:53 p.m. -- 50 minutes after it "went dark." The 115th Fighter Wing in Madison flies F-16 jets. F-16s fly about 300 knots per hour in cruise, but can fly much faster when they've got a good reason to. F-16 pilots I've talked to say the fastest they've gone is in the vicinity of 800 knots, so let's just say with an American city under a possible threat, they'd got about 700 knots -- that's 805 mph.

Madison is 198 miles from Minneapolis St. Paul or about 15 minutes for an F-16 in a hurry. If the military wanted to intercept a threat before it reached Minneapolis St. Paul, the area around Redwood Falls would've been the place to do it. That's 20 minutes away for an "on alert" F-16 in Madison.

To have been able to do that, the order to intercept would've had to have been given by 7:34 p.m., or almost a half hour after the plane "went dark." That obviously didn't happen. The military either didn't know about a plane that had been flying without being in contact for a half an hour, or they did know about it and the decision was made not to intercept the possible threat. We don't know; nobody's talking.

"I've told you more than I needed to," Keith Holloway of the National Transportation Safety Board told MPR's Marty Moylan today after telling him, well, nothing.

Taking NORAD's press release at face value, there's still the question of why the planes weren't in the air at all. Let's assume it's one minute before contact was re-established (i.e. 8:14 p.m.). That still means that an hour and 13 minutes after a jetliner stopped communicating with the ground controllers, the military still had not taken steps to intercept it.

It's true, however, that the plane's altitude hadn't changed over that time, indicating no apparent threat, but if it had been under the control of hijackers, waiting until it did to launch jets to intercept it would've been -- like 9/11 -- far too little and far too late.

In a statement today, the Transportation Security Administration provided little insight into a simple question: TSA was aware of and monitored the situation working with our federal and stakeholder partners. As part of our procedures for events of this nature, TSA protocol included checking possible screening anomalies from the departing airport, checking to see if Federal Air Marshals were onboard, notification to the airline, as well as TSA and DHS leadership. TSA also participated in briefing conference calls with other federal partners and continued to monitor the situation.
Coincidentally, an aircraft was intercepted by fighter jets on Wednesday. The pilot of a small plane stopped communicating (it turns out, he was likely dead or incapacitated) over Indiana and fighter jets followed it until it crashed. (Update: This is incorrect. There was an interception of a plane in Indiana, but it was on September 30, not the same day as Flight 188.)

In Minnesota, of course, everything turned out fine. But what if it hadn't? What questions would we be asking today?

MPR's Marty Moylan is asking some of them. Look for his report tonight on MPR's All Things Considered.

WHAT ELSE DOESN'T ADD UP?

The "they fell asleep" story is one that is being driven by the union, but so far it's not substantiated by any of the facts in the case.

Let's assume the pilots fell asleep. First, there were only two flights into San Diego on Wednesday that the pilots could've been on. One was a 9 a.m. flight out of Memphis, the other was a 9 a.m. flight out of Minneapolis St. Paul. If they weren't flying (or "deadheading") either of those, then they likely spent the night in San Diego.

If they did fall asleep over Kansas, and they did fly the morning flights and turn around and fly Flight 188, they fell asleep less than 12 hours after their workday started -- and they fell asleep at the same time. That's not ideal as far as working conditions go, but it's not unusually harsh, either.

And, finally, if they did fall asleep -- and if the FAA is accurately portraying their original story about a heated discussion -- that means the pilots concocted a pretty bizarre story to cover for another pretty bizarre story, and it means they lied to federal investigators, which will get you charged with a felony in a hurry.

IS CREW REST AN ISSUE?

Crew rest is always an issue, even if these pilots didn't fall asleep. Current rules call for 8 hours "rest" but what constitutes "rest"? To the airlines, if it takes a pilot 1/2 an hour to get to the airport, that's included as 'rest." Legislation that's been filed seeks to change that definition.

WILL THE COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER TELL INVESTIGATORS MUCH?

~~It's not likely. Most CVRs record only 30 minutes.~~ Possibly not. The airlines are only required to record the last 30 minutes of cockpit conversation. (They can record up to 2 hours as a commenter noted below). The plane landed around 9:05. Figure another 10 minutes to taxi in, and shut down and it's 9:15. The first indication the pilots started flying the airliner again was around 8:47. In other words, there's not likely to be either a lot of shouting or a lot of snoring on the tape. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that factoid.

SHOULDN'T THE PILOTS HAVE SEEN THE LIGHTS OF MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL

That's what a story from the Associated Press (written from Washington) seems to say, but there's a flaw. The weather. At the time the plane few over the Twin Cities, the weather observations said there was an overcast layer of clouds at 800 feet above the ground.

Update 6:10 p.m. After my conversation with Tom Crann on All Things Considered tonight, I got this interesting message from a reader/listener: It doesn't make a huge difference, but the speed estimates that you gave for the F16 seem to be a little bit on the low end. While the pilots you have spoken to may not have flown faster than 800 mph or so, by the book the F16 should cruise around 500 MPH and top out at over 1200 MPH in a hurry for any of the engine variants. This changes your estimated Madison-Minneapolis time to about 10 minutes.
I didn't use the sender's name because I don't have his position but he's right, an F-16 can fly as fast as about 1300. I deliberately used more conservative numbers because a jet flying at 1300 doesn't have a lot of fuel left to fly around with an Airbus and because I thought it best to be conservative when questioning the timetable of the NORAD spokesman.

But, for the heck of it, let's assume the fighters were 10 minutes from here and they waited until the last possible minute to launch -- which, of course, they did. That means they could've launched as late as 7:54 to arrive here at 8:04. At 8:04, the plane was directly over the Mississippi River, just south of the Lake Street bridge.

The point remains the same: By waiting as long as they did, NORAD (or the FAA) assured that if it had been hijacked by terrorists intent on harming the Twin Cities, the jets were not in a position -- for whatever reason -- to get into a position to stop it.

Comments (30)

Interesting points. But shouldn't the clock start running when the pilots miss an expected contact, rather than at the last point of contact? i.e. if they talk to ATC while over Goodview, KS, when is their next normal ATC contact? When that is missed is when the "What's wrong with flight 188?" clock should start ticking.

I also have to wonder how much influence the aircraft's current position, heading & speed factor into interception decisions. In this case, flight 188 remained at altitude, in cruise, on heading. Under that scenario, do you scramble immediately, or take time to continue trying radio contact? If you're the person in charge of evaluating the situation, do you send the fighters at the first sign of an anomaly, or wait for a more clear sign of distress? It seems, at this point, that the right call was made: there was not cause for military action - there was a human error in the flight 188 cockpit.

Posted by bsimon | October 23, 2009 11:49 AM

Do some research, guru. A standard CVR is capable of recording audio data for a period of 2 hours.

Posted by Edgar | October 23, 2009 11:52 AM

I'll have to go back and look at my notes, Bri, but I'm pretty sure the NTSB said they lost contact over Kansas.

Do you scramble immediately? I guess that's the question. I'm familiar with many MANY small planes -- which, for the record, have never been used in a terrorist attack on the U.S. -- that been interceepted without changing heading, airspeed, or altitude.

does an airline pose a more significant threat? boy, I sure think so.

Do I send fighters up right away? Well, again, that depends on what your primary interest is. We've got 'em. We've got pilots sitting there just for this reason.

So let's suppose you don't have the benefit of of two days to say "well, it was just pilot error," and there's a big smoking hole in the ground in Minneapolis. Do you want to be asking why you DID scramble a jet unnecessarily? Or do you want to be asking the question of why you DIDN'T?

We're pouring -- literally almost -- BILLIONS into anti-terrorism systems.

What harm would've been caused by going up and taking a look and, if need be, dropping a few flares to get the pilot's attention?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 11:55 AM

Hi Edgar:
Thanks for writing. The current FAA requirement for CVR is 30 minutes. Can they record more? Yes.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 12:00 PM

Gotta agree with bsimon on this one.

A couple of pilots that we'll find were snoozing at 30,000+ feet doesn't scream "Def Con 3" to me. There's a little too much 9/11ish hysteria in play here. The terrorists have been there and done that.

Please, let's move on to other news topics.

Posted by bob | October 23, 2009 12:05 PM

Flares? I thought you were a serious writer. Are you aware of any flares that can travel at 550 knots on a predetermined course?

Posted by Edgar | October 23, 2009 12:07 PM

Bob, you have to remember you're the commander of an air wing as something is happening, not a few days later. You don't KNOW what's going on, you only know that an airliner is dark and it's heading toward an American city.

Plus you're missing the point: that it likely was an extended period of time before NORAD was informed.

Look, you can call it hysteria if you want, I think it's a pretty good test of the system that we've been told are in place since the 9/11 commission reported its findings about why fighter jets were sitting on the ground in Otis, Massachusetts while planes were being used as missiles.

I'm not saying they should've gone up and shot the plane down; I'm asking -- I guess -- what is the level of evidence you would require before you employ the resources of the U.S. government to ascertain the problem?

You can go out to the airport today and try to get on a plane with mouthwash and you won't be able to.

Why go chase a Mooney over Indiana and not an airliner over Minnesota?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 12:19 PM

Why would a flare have to travel on a predetermined course? All you're trying to do is light up the night and get someone's attention.

So don't drop a flare. Go up and fly alongside. Are the cabin lights on? Does the airplane respond to you on 121.5. Does it rock its wings when requested?

All of which is data to answer the question, "what's going on here."

Or you can just sit on the ground and call "Northwest 188, Minneapolis, how do you read?' for an hour, I suppose. But that's not exactly an air defense system.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 12:23 PM

"I'm pretty sure the NTSB said they lost contact over Kansas."

My question is: what does 'lost contact' mean? If it means ATC tried to contact the aircraft & received no response then, yes, that's when the clock should start. But if it means that was merely the last contact, the math in the initial post changes.

My next questions are: how frequently does ATC talk to airliners? My impression is that neither party contacts the other until they need a favor - that there's not a 'just checking in to let you know I'm OK' practice. Instead, ATC only calls the aircraft if they require a course correction, or to notify them of traffic, etc. Likewise the arcraft only contacts ATC if they want to change their plans - if the ride is bumpy, or they can reroute to take advantage of winds, etc. So, what was the last exchange? Was it ATC saying, "hey, are you guys there?" Or something more like "Contact MSP Tower when you get to Redwood Falls."

As far as the comparison to 9/11 goes, aren't the situations a bit different? On that day, the aircraft in question didn't just go radio silent, they diverted from their courses and flew non-standard routes at non-standard altitudes.

I think, before reporting that things don't add up, it is relevant to ask what the standard procedures are, then determine whether they were followed. Somebody, at some point recognized the cockpit crew on 188 wasn't responding. Who & when? How frequently does that happen? What is the policy? In this case, apparently the radio was tried a few times, then the airline was notified. How much time is allowed for that before NORAD gets involved? Do the criteria change when the airliner is headed towards 'a major american city'? Is there a modifier when that city is also the aircraft's scheduled destination - particularly when the airport abuts city limits?

It seems pretty clear some heads will roll due to this event. The pilots are already queued up as the first two to go. Before we start adding to the list, shouldn't we find out what's supposed to happen - and whether those practices were followed?

Posted by bsimon | October 23, 2009 12:57 PM

Most of the enroute communication -- other than the occasional change in route -- I believe is handoffs from one controller to another.

So let's go with your assumption that Kansas was the last KNOWN contact and let's assume then -- and, frankly, this is being charitable -- that no further contact occurred until Denver handed the flight off to Minneapolis. That occurred at 7:24pm... 21 minutes later than the original post. or that the control of the plane was very much in question for slightly less than an hour.

Is that a lot? Well, it'ls substantially more than the time it took a plane to get from Albany to Manhattan.

I know what you're saying, though -- there was no deviation in flight, but that's still discomforting because it suggests that the standard for scrambling air defenses is a change in direction.

Really? After 8 years our air defense experts haven't calculated in a scenario where a terrorist gets a plan that's ALREADY headed for its intended target (None of the 9/11 planes were)?

Is it all crazy talk. Well, sure, it sounds like that. And yet today I need a passport to go from International Falls to across the border to get some gasoline because I MIGHT be a terrorist. I need to take my shoes off at the airport because I MIGHT have a shoe bomb. I can't take toothpaste on a plane because it might be part of a bomb, I can't make a reservation under Robert B. Collins because my official government id says Robert Bryan Collins, and I can't walk 10 feet from my small plane in, say, Brainerd because a commercial flight might've landed there 10 hours ago.

So, yeah, we've got all these procedures that are absolutely inviolate and all of these "threats" which are considered absolute and yet it's considered preposterous to consider the reality that a hijacker MIGHT have control of an airliner -- as if it hasn't happened before -- with an idea of targeting a major American city.

Good Lord, our entire anti-terrorism policy is based on THAT scenario and -- for the most -- that scenario only. Why wouldn't we ask these questions?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 1:54 PM

Edgar:

You might be interested in this update from AP:

The plane's flight recorders were brought to Washington Friday, but the cockpit voice recorder is an older model that contains only the last 30 minutes of conversation. That makes the investigation more difficult since that time would be taken up by the flight back to Minneapolis - the intended destination - and the landing there

Now, remember where you heard that first. (g)

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 2:47 PM

I have been puzzled about something that I have not seen anyone address: What is the role of flight attendants to communicate with or check on the captain when something unusual happens, like flight time that is significantly longer than expected?

Before we call in the jets, shouldn't we look at simpler options the airlines could take to address this? Although the flight attendants would not have known that the flight crew were not in contact with anyone on the ground, they would have noticed that the flight was taking too long. Shouldn't there be a protocol for flight attendants to get information from and/or check in with the captain when that happens?

What if when the flight time was taking 10 or 15 minutes longer than anticipated, the senior flight attendant was expected by protocol to check in with the captain for an update? Whether the captain and co-captain were sleeping or arguing, the flight attendant's timely check-in would have called them back to "situational awareness" before the Air Force had to intervene.

This makes me wonder if this is another situation where a hierarchical work culture does not permit subordinates to question superiors. We know when this happens it can lead to costly mistakes, whether it's nurses who aren't permitted to question surgeons or in another case, airline co-captains who aren't permitted to question captains' orders. (A tragic South Korean airline crash was famously attributed to a hierarchical work culture where subordinates would NEVER question a superior.)

It seems clear to me that the expectation to question what is happening needs to be extended further down the line to flight attendants. One way to change the work culture is to establish a protocol to require that timely check-in.

Posted by G Decker | October 23, 2009 3:36 PM

A commercial jet is headed for a major metropolitan area and is not responding to radio communication. Interceptors should have been dispatched.

I don't buy the argument that the plane was not intercepted because it was following flight plan. The flight plan took the plane within a few miles of identified terrorist targets. From 35,000 ft over the Twin Cities, the airliner could have reached the Mall of America before interceptors could intervene if they were on the ground.

Posted by kennedy | October 23, 2009 4:23 PM

In my version of risk assessment: 1-Very low probability of real danger 2-High potential loss if the danger does happen to be real (smoking hole in Bloomington). How can anyone in the position of making a decision do anything but send fighters? - FAST -

To expand on G Decker’s thought: I avoid flying commercial airlines whenever possible, but the last time I did fly there were phones everywhere. Couldn’t the airline’s ground control try making a call to the flight attendant?

New safety equipment to be installed in all commercial airline cockpits: alarm clocks.

Posted by tiredboomer | October 23, 2009 4:41 PM

Edgar -Regarding your comment ;

"Flares? I thought you were a serious writer. Are you aware of any flares that can travel at 550 knots on a predetermined course?"

Not sure about the serious writer part however an F-16 or, for that matter most front-line military combat aircraft are equipped with phosphorus-based anti IR-guided missile flares. Had there been a situation where the fighters in question had been ordered to use flares it would have been lightning brilliant in the cockpit of the A-320. That being said, flares would have been a bad choice as the CFM or Pratt and Whitney turbo fan engines could have sucked up said flares. That is another discussion as the discussion would get into how far from Flight 188 the flares were deployed etc…

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 6:14 PM

G Decker

“I have been puzzled about something that I have not seen anyone address: What is the role of flight attendants to communicate with or check on the captain when something unusual happens, like flight time that is significantly longer than expected?”

I have been thinking about this since the story first broke. I fly every week – take off on Sunday and come back to MSP every Friday. In fact last week I was on NWA 187 or 186 – San Diego (SAN) to MSP Friday AM.

I use a personal GPS (when I am in a window seat) just so I know how long my tired rear end is going to have to sit in a folding chair comfort level seat that is the glory of an NWA A-320 seat.

As I play it out in my mind I would have buzzed the flight attendant and asked why "we" had we not begun our initial decent (after having waited a MN nice amount of time : ). When I had seen that we were passing over MSP at 37,000 ft and at 550 MPH I propose I would have been a bit more adamant with the FA as let’s face it, it is a post 9/11 world. I only mention this pseudo fantasy as, as I said – I was on that NWA segment a week ago.

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 6:40 PM

Edgar:

You might be interested in this update from AP:

Now, remember where you heard that first. (g)

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 2:47 PM

I assumed this was the case as I doubt the aging NWA fleet would have the new digital CVRs and CDRs. I cannot speak for their long haul equipment however I doubt their CRJ’s and A-319 and 320’s have been upgraded. My guess is that Delta will get rid of the Airbus products as the leases expire.

Anyway – I am betting that there were more than a few handwritten notes passed between Pilot In Command Cheney and left seater Cole. I say this because my guess is that they may have fallen asleep and any utterance would be picked up on the CAM 1 and 2 feeds. The story about arguing over NWA/DL policies was a panic reaction. I further propose that these two will become martyrs for pilot rest periods just as “Sully” when he surprised that Congressional committee with his comments.If

I was them and IF they did fall asleep I would be preparing to be spokesmen for pilot fatigue.

Just my thinking.

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 7:04 PM

I mean, geez, even the drunk Northwest pilots of the '90s eventually got jobs flying again.

Lying to federal investigators? (If indeed they were asleep). Now they're looking at criminal charges.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 7:37 PM

//That being said, flares would have been a bad choice as the CFM or Pratt and Whitney turbo fan engines could have sucked up said flares. That is another discussion as the discussion would get into how far from Flight 188 the flares were deployed etc…

In any event, the point was simply, what HARM would it have done to go up and take a look to see if you could provide any additional data to the people on the ground to make a decision about what they were dealing with?

Heck, we did it for Payne Stewart. We did it for the guy in the Mooney over Indiana. Why didn't we do it for the benefit of the people in Minneapolis St. Paul?

Aren't we deserving of the same attention that Washington or New York is.

Because you know if this plane had flown over Philadelphia at 37,000 feet heading East, they wouldn't have been waiting 45 minutes to go take a look.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 7:43 PM

I think their only hope for saving their career -- if they were, in fact asleep (which they denied again today) -- is to have said "yeah, we fell asleep, and damn these work rules that allowed us to imperil 147 souls," and then hope that the limelight would make it difficult to get rid of them.
I mean, geez, even the drunk Northwest pilots of the '90s eventually got jobs flying again.
Lying to federal investigators? (If indeed they were asleep). Now they're looking at criminal charges.

All good points Bob.

What I cannot rectify in my head is their stated position. ‘We were debating NWA/DL policies as we were overflying our destination?’ It just does not ‘Make It Add Up’.

I hope the CVR will tell all however knowing what I know about pilots and the commercial / military aircraft world (and that is not meant to be a straw-man comment) I just cannot imagine another outcome other than sleeping pilots.

Time will tell though, as it always does.

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 7:54 PM

“That being said, flares would have been a bad choice as the CFM or Pratt and Whitney turbo fan engines could have sucked up said flares. That is another discussion as the discussion would get into how far from Flight 188 the flares were deployed etc…

I wasn't suggesting they strafe the plane with flares. The goal here is simply to get their attention. I would think an F16 could be well ahead of a 320 -- miles -- and still light up the night sky where it MIGHT cause someone to pay attention, and come up on the 121.5 frequency and have a little chat. In any event, the point was simply, what HARM would it have done to go up and take a look to see if you could provide any additional data to the people on the ground to make a decision about what they were dealing with?

Bob – please see my original post. I was commenting on Edgar’s comment regarding flares that can travel at 550 MPH, etc…

I felt you had a good point and also agree that regardless of where a commercial airline strays in a case like this where it is such an anomaly – there should be some “Little Buddies” to come up and assess the situation.

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 8:05 PM

I haven't read the full comments above, but what I would like to know is what was the cabin crew doing? If a flight takes 3 hours, as a cabin crew member I would expect about 20 minutes or so before landing the aircraft would at be reduced power and decending? Did they not notice this?
Dinty

Posted by Dinty | October 23, 2009 8:27 PM

"Little Buddies." Heh, that's a good one. Also reminds me of a popular aviator's joke told by Rod Machado, which I won't bother getting into as it's unrelated.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 23, 2009 8:38 PM

"Little Buddies." Heh, that's a good one. Also reminds me of a popular aviator's joke told by Rod Machado, which I won't bother getting into as it's unrelated.

It is a "good one" isn't it?

"Little Buddies" was a term that started with bomber crews to refer fighter cover back when we were flying over Western Europe and the Eastern Pacific.

To this day it is a military aircraft (think larger planes) pilot's reference to fighter aircraft support.

Posted by Armageddon Flame | October 23, 2009 8:53 PM

No other media outlets are covering this aspect. THANKS! This is really important!

Posted by David | October 23, 2009 10:18 PM

"A silent jetliner is heading toward a major American city and the military didn't intercept it. Why not?"

A major American city? I thought it was Minneapolis!

I love how we've gone from the President of the United States' name being in every story of a rabbit stuck in a well to never hearing a word about the (new) President of the United States. Haven't you heard that terrorism is over now? The world loves us now -- and where they don't, it's our fault 'cause we killed all the whales, except those we saved.

Posted by William | October 24, 2009 7:21 PM

Check out this exclusive story on NWA Flight 188

EXCLUSIVE: NORTHWEST FLIGHT 188: CRUCIAL COMMUNICATION DEVICE TURNED OFF?

Posted by The Enterprise Report | October 25, 2009 9:37 AM

It should be noted that you do NOT need a passport to go from International Falls into Canada. Any form of picture ID to enter Canada is welcome

However, you need a passport to RE-ENTER the United States. The passport law was implemented by the US government. NOT Canada.

But by your passport anyway. Everyone in Europe has been doing so well before 911 and they don't have an issue with it.

Posted by Joe Basaraba | October 25, 2009 5:17 PM

Believe it or not, I've been intercepted by F-16's (small plane pilot/transponder issue) and it took them about 15 min to show up. I doubt NORAD was notified, at least until the incident was almost over.

Little doubt in my mind they were asleep. What kind of pilots would remove their headsets in flight? Especially unlikely that both do so simultaneously.

Posted by GDG | October 28, 2009 2:00 AM

You're right - it doesn't add up. Two hot fighter jocks with a perfect excuse to light up the afterburners and do a real life intercept mission, and they don't get off the ground? A USAF ground commander with the chance of being a hero and saving the Twin Cities from OBL's revenge, and he doesn't launch the F-16's? Maybe the pilots in the A320 weren't the only pilots having forty winks at the time. Or maybe everyone knew exactly what was going on (a mini-mutiny on the flight deck perhaps) and aren't saying. Incidentally, can I point out that referring to speed as knots per hour is incorrect - knots is the correct term for "nautical miles per hour" (based on how sailing ships used a knotted rope and a timing glass to measure their speed). Great discussion piece thanks.

Posted by John Charlton | February 10, 2012 12:11 AM