Trump Tower No Fly Zone

>>31959600
nobody is allowed to fly in the zone and if someone does they'll be hunted down and will have an M4 shoved up their ass by the secret service

>>31959618
What can they do to make sure nobody gets close enough to do damage in the moment?

>>31959635
nothing, do you actually think the secret service is going to deploy an anti air system in the middle of manhattan?

washington dc has an IADS but NYC doesn't so he'll just have to put up with it

>>31959647
Well MANPADS exist, so
Call me stupid but it's POSSIBLE to deploy them in a city like New York, right?

>>31959647
>but NYC doesn't
The NY National Guard co-ops with the NYPD to operate several AA systems ranging from Stingers to 3 batteries of Patriots within NYC and the surrounding metro area. Ostensibly as part of the nuclear defense, but it was all put in place immediately after 9/11.

>>31959660
yes but what's the point? flying a plane into trump tower is a dumb idea. unless you have access to something larger than a cessna you're just going to break a few windows and start a fire, not kill trump.

>>31959680
>unless you have access to something larger than a cessna
Good thing there aren't like 3 fucking international airports within close proximity to NYC then isn't it? Oh wait...

>>31959679
sure but functionally that's never going to be used. if they mess up and shoot down a single non hijacked plane they're going to get fucked up. in DC it's pretty easy to see when someone is trying to go allahu akbar, so you'll have a larger chance of actually detecting it and stopping it. in NYC if a plane heads towards manhattan and pitches down either you're going to be lucky enough to shoot them down and only get an engine stuck in the empire state building or you're going to lose and the plane will hit.

>>31959698
yes bro i'm sure you're going to be able to get access to a commercial aircraft without having the NYPD jumping all over your ass or the pilots kicking your shit in

>>31959741
you do realize how easy it is to steal any piston aircraft and how easy it is to start fadec controlled jets right?

>>31959600
If you bust the airspace they will intercenpt you with a fighter jet or attack helicopter and then slap your shit once they escort you to the ground.

Source; I'm a professional pilot.

In reality they will stop nothing from happening if someone wanted to do something. Not enough room to respond. I'd have to look at a chart with better resolution but that appears to be in class bravo airspace as well which one is not allowed into without a specific clearance anyway.

I feel flight restrictions like this are more a hassle and primarily to stop people from loitering over the area, for example they have them over Disney land too.

>>31959762
>steal any piston aircraft
yes bro i'm sure that'll do a lot of damage to trump tower

>fadec controlled jets
yes, but the entire point is the aircraft is either in a NYC airport (therefore the NYPD is 5 minutes away) or somewhere else (NORAD is very good at detecting hijacked planes after 9/11). you're not going to be able to get off the ground and fly into manhattan.

I think it is funny a large swathe of Manhattan is a no fly zone. How many CEO's and monopoly men can't fly their choppers now?

>>31959791
>i'm sure that will do a lot of damage
Uh yea, a small twin like a 410 will do a lot of damage...

>
Don't steal a fucking commercial airliner. steal a private jet. If you can get in it you can start it and request permission to taxi and take off.

>>31959741
I'd be more worried about a legit pilot/crewmember deciding to aloha snackbar the tower than I am someone stealing an unattended passenger jet.

After all, Trump's about the best thing that could've happened to the muzzies out of this election, due to his separatist/isolationist leanings.

You have to keep in mind OP, that's also in one of the biggest most heavily monitored class Bravo airspaces in the country, if you bust that airspace without talking to ATC to get clearance, you will have fighters scrambling to intercept before you can get close to the trump tower.
>>31959817
Helicopters haven't been able to land on buildings in Manhattan in ages, they have to land on heliports on the edges of the island. T here's only about 3 buildings with active heliports now and they aren't used. Though with the new Commander in Chief, I forsee trump tower will get a helipad soon enough.

>/pol/ here
You have to go back

>>31959821
>Uh yea, a small twin like a 410 will do a lot of damage...
enough to cave in some windows, cause a large fire and potentially kill 20-30 people, yes. enough to bring the tower down or otherwise kill trump if it doesn't hit him directly, no.

>steal a private jet. If you can get in it you can start it and request permission to taxi and take off.
that's assuming you can get through security, get into the aircraft, figure out how to start it, figure out how to take off without getting fucked up, figure out how to pilot it and figure out how to fly it into trump tower. and in the end you have to hope trump isn't in some secret briefing and you're lucky enough to kill him.

oh and that's also assuming that the secret service doesn't get notice that someone is flying a plane on an unplanned trajectory towards the middle of manhattan, because if they do get notice they're going to bring trump out and into another building.

>>31959837
i find that very unlikely, but on the upside if that did happen we would have justification to destroy ISIS and kick out all of the muslims for real. ww2 level internment camps too.

>>31959888
Nigger can you even read?
>most likely to be the actual crew, not a hijacking
>because muzzies *should* like him because he's gonna leave the ME the fuck alone
It's gonna be some under-50 white numale pilot that does it if anybody.
>probably from United, because it would be the most ironic airline

>>31959600
Aren't all cities no-fly zones anyway?

>>31959912
let's be honest, who would fly a plane into a building except a muslim?

>>31959888
>how to get into the aircraft
They don't exactly have locks
>figure out how to start it
You literally hit the "start" button
>figure out how to take off
Point down runway, slam throttles forward, pull back on yoke. Voila.
>how to pilot it
Outside of precision maneuvers most planes with yokes (IE, anything that isn't a fighter jet) will drive very much like a car.
>figure out how to fly it into trump tower
Point at tower. Don't do anything else. Make sure to close your eyes shortly before impact.

>>31959932
White Christian Germans have done it twice in the last 10 years. Plus 2 more times into the sides of mountains ostensibly on purpose.

File: 1458368523524 (1).jpg (215KB, 1837x1227px)

215KB, 1837x1227px

>>31959865
Hm. That some liberal bullshit, 9/11 stuff, or what? That's fascinating.

I always always always wanted to live in a building I can just land a helicopter on, so I'm curious.

>>31959973
It was the result of the 1977 crash on the Pan-Am building (now metlife), now the only 3 helicopter terminals still open on the island are on the river.

File: Manhattan.original.98.jpg (238KB, 1600x738px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x738px

>>31959942
>They don't exactly have locks
They have people with guns around them though.

>You literally hit the "start" button
um, no. it's going to take at least 5 minutes, and that's if you already know the process by heart, know what you're doing, the plane is basically ready to take off anyway, and you're deliberately cutting corners and rushing it (which people who aren't pilots can't really do).

>Point down runway, slam throttles forward, pull back on yoke. Voila.
i would be amazed if you could pull that off at 2 AM at KJFK, let alone 2 PM. there is a very large chance you're going to get hit by another plane. this isn't GTA.

>Outside of precision maneuvers most planes with yokes (IE, anything that isn't a fighter jet) will drive very much like a car.
:^)

>Point at tower. Don't do anything else. Make sure to close your eyes shortly before impact.
pic related. i hope you're a damn good pilot.

>>31959942
>They don't have locks
This is wrong
>Literally have start buttons
Wrong again
>Point down runway, slam throttles forward, pull back on yoke. Voila.
Sure if you want to flame out stall and crash at 110m
>Outside of precision maneuvers most planes with yokes (IE, anything that isn't a fighter jet) will drive very much like a car.

No lmao

>Point at tower. Don't do anything else. Make sure to close your eyes shortly before impact.

This is the closest to right

>>31959874
No.

>>31959942
>They don't exactly have locks
Yes, they fucking do. These planes cost 80 million dollars a piece. They not only have locks, bu they also will olikely have their batteries disconnected, every single flight pin installed, and most importantly the pilot will have the keys. Not only that, but the ramp crew isn't going to let just anyone on the ramp, and when they see you trying to break the jet, they'll call security.

Source: I work as a lineman with exclusively private aircraft, and I'm a pilot.

>You literally hit the "start" button
No, depending on the jet, you'll either have to start the APU or convince the line crew to connect ground power (not to mention fueling the aircraft). Even then, you have to start the turbines spinning, and then add fuel to start them. And the line crew will notice that as well. And of course, so will the ground controller when you go to move.
>Point down runway, slam throttles forward, pull back on yoke. Voila.
Have fun stalling out of ground effect and burning to death at the far end of the runway, you stupid fucker.
>Outside of precision maneuvers most planes with yokes (IE, anything that isn't a fighter jet) will drive very much like a car.
t. someone who's never tried to navigate in an aircraft
>Point at tower.
Yes, if you haven't crashed by then, and can find said tower.

>>31960007
>They have people with guns around them though.
No. They have dudes in bright green shirts, though. And they do have locks.

>>31960007
I mean, it is true. Any dumbass can keep a cessna in the air untill fuel runs out. Landing the thing's a different story though.

>>31960525
Again, we're talking about a large private jet, here, not a piddly little Skyhawk.

>>31959660
Better a plane hitting a business tower than a plane crashing in pieces above six residential blocks.

>>31959635
Airplanes have a transponder that can track them. The airport radars keep track of bearing. The pilots are required to know how to use a radio.

>>31960817
Here, let me teach you how to turn off your transponder.
>1. Look at transponder
>2. Turn from "ALT" setting to "STBY" setting
>3. Allahu Akbar

>>31960830
>turn off transponder
>they still have ground radar
what now smart guy

Do they launch the F-16s as soon as you enter Bravo without clearance? Obviously not going to try it it real life, but I'm curious.

>>31960869
Sure. No, they don't really, and it's a lot harder to identify and track an aircraft with an actual radar than an ATC radar. Receiving data directly from the aircraft is easy, everything else is not, and also very, very expensive.

Most of the US is not covered by real radar, and even then they're not going to spew missiles at a plane with its transponder off because you don't have to have a transponder for most of the airspace in the US anyway. Seriously, I've only needed a transponder for one flight I've made, and that same flight was the only one I had to have a radio as well.

>>31960895
No, not unless they're already in the air for something important. Otherwise they'll yell at you, tack you, find out who you were, and take away your pilot's license. Obviously they don't need to do that if you snackbar.

>>31960954
>Seriously, I've only needed a transponder for one flight I've made
Are you an Alaskan bush pilot?

>>31960975
No, that flight was just above 10,000 MSL all the way there. Otherwise the only airports nearby are class D, and don't even have radar service.

>>31960382
>yes, they fucking do
I've worked with twin-engine turboprops for the last 15 years. None of them have door locks, and while the few planes that have a segregated cabin have a lockable cabin door, I've never seen it even closed while parked, much less locked. Bigger planes may be different.

Same deal with pushbutton vs other forms--a lot of the smaller twin-engine planes literally do have a start button, and many don't require a separate startup proceedure for an APU. Fair point on the turbines, but prop and turboprop don't require that.

Most turboprops have pretty good thrust to weight, as long as you're not trying to pull a full loop "slam throttle forward, yank yoke" would probably work on a plane not carrying a full load. At least the smaller Airbus's would be fine, and they're generally considered slightly underpowered.

Most commercial planes have at least a couple hundred pounds of fuel onboard pretty much all the time, because a completely empty tank is a PITA all around.
>and the line crew will notice as well
Well of fucking course. Though something tells me that guy's whole premise was you were at/in the plane unnoticed (or authorized) already.

>>31960830
Preeety sure this is why there's been a push for always-on transponders recently.

Not sure how big of a push or how much ground it's gained but there was at least some talk about the FAA requiring it in the near future.

File: 1466642566282.png (953KB, 620x647px)

953KB, 620x647px

>>31959741
Look, Abdul. It's fucking happening. Deal with it.

>>31963459
In that case, updated procedure.
>1. Pull out your sectional
>2. Shut off power to avionics, or even master power if you have to
>3. Allahu Akbar

>>31963424
My C172N has door locks, and every plane sitting at the airport I work at has the doors locked.

Psh, turbos are gay or something. More importantly, if we're talking about stealing commercial planes, there's whole different procedures for that, and every other turbo is generally pretty small. There are big ones, but they are hella rare.

Thrust to weight doesn't matter if you you lift off in ground effect aggressively. You will likely stall the instant you leave it, and there's no room to recover. That's why knowing rotation speed is very important. In addition many planes, if brought nose up, stop accelerating and can't lift off at all.

But if your presumption of the premise is that you are the pilot then there's nothing to argue about. None of these things are issues for the person trained to fly the plane.

>>31963563
What is with the obsession with planes anyway? a reinforced truck loaded with a couple hundred pounds of Saudi funded RDX could probably level any building not specifically reinforced against it.

>>31963668
Spinnies are cool.

>>31963668
Cause you know what's cooler than being on the news for just driving a truck into a building and snack baring? Flying a plane into a building and snack baring.

File: tmp_9515-20161019_160523-929657853.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>31960830
Transponders only identify you. You'd only turn it off if you wanted to avoid jail time. But you'd probably be escorted by f16s to the nearest airport and greeted on the tarmac by an asston of cops/federales pointing salt rifles at you.

Also 99.999999999999999999% of everything in this thread is utter bullshit. They likely have fighters on standby to escorts an aircraft that violates the RAS. They aren't going to have MANPADS, that's dumb as fuck.

>>31964234
Your transponder broadcasts your altitude, and in some cases identifier code (though not always, my plane is a nameless dot with an altitude). A receiving "radar" measures the bearing and distance to display you location. ATC radar cannot see you with your transponder off.

Military radar, on the other hand, can. But it has to, y'know, be pointed at you and on, which are quite more expensive to do. It's not illegal to lack a transponder completely in most US airspace. You also don't need a radio in most US airspace.

They can only launch fighters at you if they know you went missing and violated the air space, and the communication between civilian ATC and military controllers is not great. For example, people do occasionally violate the TFRs over forest fires (a huge big deal, by the way), but you will only get in trouble if someone on the ground reads off your tail number or you say it to the range controllers.

And lastly, fighters are expensive to keep on alert (which is what you're referring to). Not many places keep them sitting there armed and fueled with the pilots nearby except DC. Most airbases do maintain an alert thirty or something like that though.

Plus MANPADS are pretty useless for shooting down anybody who's not pretending to be a helo.

>>31964588
>And lastly, fighters are expensive to keep on alert (which is what you're referring to).
It's also very taxing on the pilots and crew. And to schedules because of things like mandatory crew rest. And if it's not preplanned (not applicable here), throws a huge wrench into doing normal ops at the same time.

We supported F-16s on 1-hour alert immediately after Bengazi went down since we were the closest AF base able to respond, and it was not fun, especially for the pilots.

>>31964721
Yeah, can you imagine being on alert five or ten all the fucking time? ANG guys near DC have shitty lives. Especially since they jump in, fire up and get called back before they reach the runway like 3-10 times a day.

>>31964736
Holy shit that would blow so hard. Even being the MX, ammo, fuels, or intel for those guys would be a shit job.

>when you are the fighter pilot equivalent of a cuck

>>31964588
>ATC radar cannot see you with your transponder off.
False. Primary targets are still very visible on ATC radar. They appear as the large blobs underneath a datablock. If there is no transponder you still get a radar hit.
Transponders (Mode C specifically) always transmit a code of some kind when on, normally they're set to 1200 for VFR or were preassigned a code from ATC, be it for an IFR flight plan or local flight following. However, unless there is ARTS data inputted on the controller side, the datablock will be a * with an altitude and speed next to it. I can put a datablock on you just by typing in anything I want, slewing onto your target and hitting enter. This can be done on a 1200 code too, and a lot of Class-D towers don't bother assigning codes for this reason.

tl;dr: If you turn your Mode-C off the radar will still get a return on something and show it on the radar.

>>31964948
I know, I'm not talking about turning Mode C off, I'm talking about disabling the transponder completely. I'm not sure how all of them work, but when mine is on standby, it doesn't transmit at all. I have to set it to ALT or ON for it to transmit anything.

I imagine that's because it would be very annoying to have aircraft on the airport blasting you with dots and altitudes whenever their power switches are on.

>>31965040
I'm saying even with no mode c or transponder on, you still get a primary target on radar.
You'd be surprised how many commercial and corporate pilots have to be reminded to turn the thing on after takeoff.

>>31965040
>I imagine that's because it would be very annoying to have aircraft on the airport blasting you with dots and altitudes whenever their power switches are on.
This is how ASDE-X works.

So I have a question that may be stupid.
Say we get 9/11 2.0 and a 737 or even a cessna or just anything is flying and heading towards buildings.
What would be the purpose of the F-16's shooting it out of the sky? Would it still not cause a lot of damage from shrapnel?
Or is the amount of damage an intact plane can do so much more great than lots and lots of shrapnel and engines falling out of the sky?

>>31965357
You can attempt to shoot it down in a spot where its debris won't cause as much harm. Given that buildings tend to be a place where people are concentrated, any open area would be an improvement.

File: tmp_21346-GOPR00711399351215.jpg (3MB, 3680x2760px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3680x2760px

>>31964721
I was Medevac at my last unit. It costs nothing to keep an aircraft fueled up and ready to go. And it isn't that taxing to have a crew ready to go 24/7. I've launched in under 9 minutes from notification.

>>31965188
Apparently that's now how it works for SLC, 'cause I was troubleshooting my transponder and he lost contact when I switched it to standby.

>>31965193
And not very many airports are equipped with that. Literally only 35.

>>31959600
large magnets?

>>31968288
Yes but they're all the major airports near juicy targets.

Mainly by coincidence but still.

>>31959741
>yes bro i'm sure you're going to be able to get access to a commercial aircraft without having the NYPD jumping all over your ass or the pilots kicking your shit in
Jesus Christ, you kids really are all under 18.

>>31968488
Doesn't have to be all that near though. A CX can push mach .94.

>>31969198
Not to mention a Citation X is a big girl, with lot's of fuel in addition to the sanic speed.

>>31959647
>>31959679

basically what this guy >>31959741 said.

the US is effectively uncontested airspace, and if someone wanted to do something stupid, they could.

File: radarscope.png (5KB, 1016x249px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 1016x249px

>>31968288
>Apparently that's now how it works for SLC, 'cause I was troubleshooting my transponder and he lost contact when I switched it to standby.
That's radar contact that he 'lost'. Turn it off then you lose the information on your altitude and speed, and even though he still has a primary target on you, he has to inform you that there is no more information to provide radar services.
I've been a controller for 9 years now. Maybe this image help.
See how there is still a block in the first image? That's a primary target with no information other than 'radar hit'.

>>31972279
Alrighty, I'll defer to you then. I just didn't expect there to be a bunch of huge spinning radiation spewing devices all over the place. Not that it matters much for me. I have to get damn high for anybody to even talk to me except the local traffic anyways.

>>31959679
This guy.
I was with the 101st and a bunched of us throughout the army who qualified on the itas (tow missile platform) got to go to NYC to train NYNG and local Leo on proper response to an invasive threat two, three years ago. Went all up and down the eastern seaboard.
NYC can put a stinger up every plane taking off or landing at jfk or laguardia airport for 3 hours before ammo has to be brought on the island.
Yea. They can enforce a no fly zone pretty fast, especially with coordination from the navy, air force, and coast guard radar.
9/11 caused that shit to tighten up real quick.

>>31959680
Good thing no one has ever been able to hijack an airliner and fly it into a building before.

>>31959930
>aren't all centers for commerce that always always contain busy airports no fly zones?

Kys

>>31959600
>>31959600
thats a restricted area, you have to have a reason to be there. there is no way to really enforce it besides MANPADs for ones like in washington. you will be intercepted and arrested though.

>>31959600
jet fuel can't melt steel beams