How a small incident, planned and planted by those who are interested to demonstrate the vulnerability of the U.S.A. and to state that 9/11 was an unavoidable event which could not be prevented, nevertheless revealed much more than these people ever wished ...
(using some thoughts of a forums discussion)+ der Bodensee-Crash (german) - revealing TCAS features
The story of a small plane that recently wandered into prohibited airspace near the White House:
 #e Reuters #e Andrews afb in action #e timeline
What was the impression intended?
- U.S. Air National Guard fighter jets were scrambled into the air too late from nearby Andrews Air Force Base on Wednesday night to protect the White House from a small plane
The whole purpose of this "incident" was just to get out the 
"fighters arrived too late" angle, again. The lack of fighter response on Sept 11th is one of the key issues being raised now also by the relatives of the WTC victims. 
1. The Cessna pilot knew
"In the early eighties, I got a pilot's licence, just private, single engine land. Even back then, my instructor told me that you couldn't buzz the White House or military installations or "you would be forced down". Avionics are more sophisticated now. My flying experience predated civilian GPS technology. 
The pilot of that little Cessna almost certainly knew where he was even if he was not instrument rated."

2. The Cessna pilot was a professional
"It seems breathtaking carelessness that put the pilot where F-16s might come checking. The turbulence would be enough to scare you to death." 

3. He was under control
"If a controller let that pilot get so close to the White House that he could have done damage, the controller as well as the pilot could answer for it." The approach towards that small prohibted area starting only 15 miles from the White House must have been observed by ground control - it is their every day task. 
According to Bob Arnott of MSNBC, "Pilots are supposed to hit
each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button.... It‚s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour." Routine response to such emergencies is to order "fighter-intercepts" into the air, to regain contact with the pilot, (NORAD spokesman, Boston Globe, 9/15/2000).
There are at least 3 indications that something is wrong for ground control: 
- change of height or course or wrong course, 
- the transponder off and 
- no radio contact anymore. 
If they had no radio contact they could not order the Cessna pilot out of the area. But if they saw the (slow!) approach towards Washington they must have tried to contact him, so they noticed the radio failed. Two indications! So there is no reasonable cause why the alarmbells did not ring at least (!!!) when he entered the area, so 7:59. Why did it take again 4 more minutes until they alarmed NORAD? Did they wait until it hit the even smaller 5-mile zone? Why - if they had no radio contact?

4. To publish the story is a "crime" itself
"Remember how right after 9/11, we were all warned to be on the alert for anyone curious about the structural engineering of skyscrapers? It seemed stupid, checking on load codes would be enough to get you a visit from the FBI, just to make sure you weren't planning to take down a landmark. Flash forward and they're telling this story about the wandering Cessna, which has also told terrorist wannabes how to get spores or other nasties to the White House. A small plane would probably not work now, but it sure looks as if radio controlled or semi-autonomous small drones could do the job." 

5. It is all standard - nothing new
This what happened to the Cessna is not a procedure installed after 9/11. It is logically and historically the standard operational procedure as Jared Israel proved in his www.tenc.net.
"Training flights & other sorties are routinely diverted when a priority exists. The procedure is that the the OPS Boss (with info from Command & Control) will give orders to radio to divert the training operation; or a request will be made by the pilot to deviate and then the request will go through the Ops Boss to command and control and will approve or disapprove the request. The officers are never really at liberty to act freely in these situations. Also the higher priority (or more important the event) the higher the request will go up the food chain before it is approved or denied - but food for thought. The argument that training flights were not able to be diverted does not hold water. Especially if they were already airborne. Also routine training happens on a routine schedule - there may be deviations from time to time -  maintainance, other training, etc. - but they are the military - they are on schedule - constantly. If they are SUPPOSED to be in the air - they ARE in the air. On a normal day under normal orders those flights are in the air the same time they were the day before & will be the next day as well." Was there not even one training flight on 9/11?

The procedures itself work in normal order:
as the news revealed:
"The officials told Reuters that two F-16 fighters took off 11 minutes after ordered -- well within the 15-minute time period allowed to respond to emergencies -- but did not reach the scene ..."
As Jared Israel proved, Andrews AFB changed its website to hide the fact that there are fighters day and night in alarm status (suddenly on September 12th it was allegedly only training and support squadrons there).
So we can prove by this Cessna incident that Andrews AFB has fighters for the purpose of intercepting. 
(Where were they on 911? They did not only come too late - they did not even scramble on 911.) 

So - allthough the intention of that Cessna incident is obviously to implement a feeling of helplessness and to repeat the "tragic" "failures" and "lapses" of 911 - we can use the revelation which we have black on white now: not only OTIS AFB and Langley AFB, but also ANDREWS has and had interceptors. 

These guys are so transparent it's not even funny. 

The Cessna pilot was, in my opinion, a paid member of the agencies. We will never prove that, but it is not that much important ...

Questions to ask:

1) On 9/11, to put it mildly, the fighter interceptors were late to the party. But now a Cessna gets a little off course and that pilot gets an F-16 on him within some minutes.
Why isn't this discrepancy all over the news?

2) It is very strange that this pilot did not get a lot of personal and embarrassing publicity. Who was he who scared the White House? Must he pay a fine and some more for the hours of duty of NORAD, the fighters, or for the time of evacuation?

3) Does anyone have record of the exchange between the tower and the pilot? Was the transponder on?

4) HOW did they obtain now on Andrews AFB the readiness of interceptors "again"? Who changed the orders and equipment? When? Since they had allegedly no interceptors on 911 ...:-))

5) Was there not even one training flight on 9/11?

Jared Israel asks: The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reported that it 'suspected' Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked by 8:20 Eastern Time. (1) So when Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center, of course the FAA knew this was a terrorist act. Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS September 16th that the FAA had open lines to the Secret Service as soon as Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. So the Secret Service was in the know no later than 8:45 Eastern time. (2)

 Flight 77 reached Ohio and turned around, heading back to Washington, DC around 8:55, we are told. At 9:06 the FAA reports that it ordered the air corridor from Cleveland, Ohio, to Washington, D.C. closed to all air traffic. (3) 

 We are told that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon around 9:45 Eastern time.  So here's the burning question: why weren't those combat jets which DCANG provided, "in the highest possible state of readiness" - why weren't those planes scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base *before* the Pentagon was hit?

Der Bodensee-Crash
mit verursacht durch ein System - das es in dieser Form eigentlich gar nicht gibt/ geben dürfte?
Zitat LTU: "So haben wir als eine der ersten Fluggesellschaften in Europa sämtliche Maschine mit dem elektronischen Kollisionswarngerät TCAS
ausgerüstet. Die Abkürzung TCAS steht für die englische Bezeichnung „Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System“, zu deutsch etwa Verkehrswarn- und
Kollisionsverhinderungssystem. Durch TCAS erhalten die Piloten auf einem Bildschirm im Cockpit Informationen über den Luftverkehr im Umkreis von 35km. Andere Flugzeuge und deren Position sind durch grafische Symbole dargestellt. Sollte es zu einer kritischen Annäherung an die eigene Maschine kommen, warnt TCAS die Besatzung und schlägt zugleich das optimale Ausweichmanöver vor. So rechtzeitig, daß keine hektischen Flugmanöver nötig sind und die Passagiere in der Regel von einem solchen Vorfall noch nicht einmal etwas merken. Rund 300.000 DM kostet ein TCAS-Gerät.
In den USA ist es schon lange Vorschrift, in Europa soll es erst vom Jahr 2000 an für alle Flugzeuge mit mehr als 15.000 Kilogramm Startgewicht oder 30
Passagiersitzen zur Pflichtausstattung gehören." Quelle
"warnt ... und schlägt vor" - keinesfalls Automatismen? Obwohl doch die Systemdaten benutzt werden und es nur ein klitzekleiner Befehl an die computergesteuerten Motoren der Klappen wäre? Sie drücken sich um den Begriff "automatisch" (z.B. "Tagesthemen" am 2.6.) - leider hat die FlugRevue 1/98 da einen Strich durch die Rechnung gemacht: 
"If TCAS doesn't receive an altitude code, it is not able to give resolution advisories. Evasion maneuvers must then be initiated by the pilot and are not automated. " - Im Normalfall also "automated". 
Hier die offiziellen Untersuchungsergebnisse
TCAS - beide Flugzeuge (also auch die Tupolev 154 - seit 2001) waren mit dem System ausgerüstet. Fehlfunktion?
Die Medienmaschine funktioniert wieder ausgezeichnet:
a) es kann sich nur um menschliches Versagen handeln
b) wenn es ein technisches Versagen gäbe, dann natürlich nur auf Seiten der Tupolev. Boeings versagen nie, Tupolevs immer.
c) Fongern von "Cockpit": wenn menschliches Versagen, dann auf allen vier Seiten suchen (2x Besatzungen, 2x Flugleitzentralen)
d) Die Automatik des TCAS um Himmels willen nicht diskutieren - daran hat keine Seite ein Interesse ... Überhaupt gibt es keine Automatik dabei, und wenn dann doch nur vertikal, und niemals die Pilotenentscheidung aushebelnd, und niemals zu "global hawk" in Verbindung stehend und für die Herbeiführung des 11. September gänzlich ungeeignet, 
e) und was verstehen schon Laien davon ...
(c) Andreas Hauß, June 2002,  http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/index1.html