I’d like to see the defense minister* who would order such a shooting-down.

Just picking one of the first Google hits, what Jung appears to have said is that pending a new legal basis, if he necessary he intends to secure the air space by asserting a right to self-defense. He is quoted to say that he can and would act in an emergency situation.

Sure seems like fighting words to me.

Uh, okay, Elwedd. Lets move, uh, I don’t know exact figures, maybe 20%-30% of the population of all developed states?

Fine, if you want to be that way.

The risk of an aircraft or something ejected from it dropping onto you rise sharply with the proximity to an airport. Living right under the flight path on approach to or departure from a runway isn’t much different from living in an earth-quake zone. Statistically, it’s not a question of if, but when bad things will happen. Having said that, a lot of people will get lucky anyway because jet fuel will run out before the odds catch up with them.

If you live under the flight corridors criss-crossing nations where aircraft travels at cruising altitude, the residual risk is negligible, even if planes do lose bits and pieces once in a while.

Happier now?

Apparently, then, arms control IS working better than we thought.

I wonder about the same thing, although I recall a time when the IRA had their asshats fire mortars at Heathrow’s runways.

*One* of the systems deployed in ElAl aircraft defends againt heat-seaking, shoulder-fired missiles.  It does this by releasing -flares- and, for good measure, metalic strips called -chaff-.

Littering. There you have it.

After more research...The Israeli system is indeed the one that the Israelis mount upon at least some of their military aircraft. This means that it very very good, on par with or better than US systems of a similar nature. There is some implication that perhaps the Israelis are playing white mice for the idea of loading US systems on US commercial planes, with the bones of contention being the price (of course), actual ability to protect a plane at an altitude of less than a 1000 feet or so without burning up large swaths of land (20 or so flares that are supposed to burn out before they hit the ground hot enough to set aluminum on fire), maintenance concerns (commercial planes don’t have the same sorts of maintenance schedules as military aircraft), explosives concerns (you’ve basically got several hundred pounds of explosives attached to your fuselage somewhere, and the airframe wasn’t designed with the idea of launching flares from the frame like most military aircraft were), and power concerns (which is related to the actual ability thing, but it’s worth noting that military aircraft have LOTS of extra power to propel a plane safely out of the seeking range of a missile compared to any commercial plane so they could theoretically do everything right and still get peppered by an explosion that they couldn’t get away from). There does not seem to be any significant concern about flare malfunction on the plane except in the notion that if any given airline handles flares the way it handles luggage then anything is possible, and commercial airlines fly lots and lots more hours in the air than military aircraft.

The last and most significant sounding concern was that there are flase positives that can release the devices, and that means that after some certain percentage of hundreds or thousands of hours you near a statistical certainty that the devices will at some time launch off for no good reason to no one’s clear notion of what will happen.

Now I don’t feel much safer about the idea of Israeli airplanes coming into JFK now either, on the fear that some wise guy with a little knowledge and some homebuilt rockets might see if he can’t hotwire the pretty lights on landing approach to come out to impress his girlfriend.

Remember, the Swiss culture has deeply ingrained anti-Semitic ideals and a large percentage of its citizens are openly dislike Jews, especially Israelis:

Xenophobic and racist opinions are often expressed within institutional parties. Kark Kissling, a Christian Democrat from Solothurn, was expelled from the party after he publicly held Jews responsible for the September 11 attacks in the US. Geneva Mayor Manuel Tornare ... claimed the attacks were a direct consequence of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/switzerland.htm

“A survey in Switzerland suggests that anti-semitism remains deeply rooted in the country.

It indicates that 16% of Swiss people are fundamentally anti-semitic, while 60% have anti-semitic sympathies.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/678669.stm

---

ElAl is historically justified in deploying this tried and tested anti-missile system (Kenya 2002).  The concerns of the Swiss government are, i believe, politically motivated.  And, worse, probably a result of their medieval-like anti-semitic culture.

Do not look for reason when there is only rabid fear.

Remember, Europeans prefer to argue between the lines of a conversation, and rarely openly and forthrightly, especially with Jews.

Yeah, US is best country for critisizing others when it itself doesn’t care about international treaties, not mentioning scientific facts…

This is very propably how it would be made in case of big, slow, clumsy, passenger plane because anything less wouldn’t be so effective.
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/decoy.mpe
How much do you think there isn’t burning in ground if that’s made in low altitude?
Potential to damage is magnitudes bigger than in case of ice blocks falling from plane.

And system would have to be automatic because from passenger plane visibility would be lousy… in military planes these are manually activated systems.
Then shoulder launched missiles can’t cause big lauch signature… after all those are shoulder launched and shooter isn’t supposed to wear fire proof protective gear. Also IR missiles are passive homing so they don’t emit exposing radiation. So how sensitive system is and can it discard for example sun reflecting from water surface or window?

Emotion-Based Non Sequitor Identified:

Yeah, US is best country for critisizing others when it itself doesn’t care about international treaties, not mentioning scientific facts…

Who is discussing the US honoring international treaties?  This issue has *nothing* to do with the Swiss treatement of Jews and Israeli interests.

Regarding flares...
Anyone who has worked with the military and flares know they can cause fires, usually -small- fires that people on the ground put out with a bucket of water (as i have done).  But, this is usually the case only when flares are launched from the ground into the air.

The Swiss Model: (White-Euro)Life vs Property
A few small fires, albeit fairly improbable, on the ground is a minor annoyance compared to the loss of sine 100-300 individual humans (albeit Jews, i admit) plunging to their death.

Let’s face it, the Swiss don’t really like Jews; Their history, both recent and distant, and policies like this merely re-enforce this idea.

Then shoulder launched missiles can’t cause big lauch signature… after all those are shoulder launched and shooter isn’t supposed to wear fire proof protective gear. Also IR missiles are passive homing so they don’t emit exposing radiation. So how sensitive system is and can it discard for example sun reflecting from water surface or window?

Flight Guard’s uses a pulsed Doppler radar to detect incoming threats. The question is what is the radar cross section section of, say, an SA-7.

The link in my 2/27/06 07:35 PM post points to a description of the system.

Let’s face it, the Swiss don’t really like Jews;

In my experience, the Swiss are xenophobic on general principle. The only thing they appear to dislike more than the folks from the next valley over are foreigners. I wouldn’t contest that their bias against Germans and Jews is above their own average.

It’s hard to see their decision as anything but a political message using safety concerns as a transparent cover and the same goes for the other European countries that consider following suit.

Just curious - if the Swiss force Israelis (they’re not all Jews, by the way) to fly on an airliner that does get shot down owing to a lack of defenses or hijacked due to sub-El Al-standard security, will they be held accoutable?

Just curious - if the Swiss force Israelis (they’re not all Jews, by the way) to fly on an airliner that does get shot down owing to a lack of defenses or hijacked due to sub-El Al-standard security, will they be held accoutable?

We can only hope. I know I would be pretty pissed if I lost anything on one of those flights. Of course, both the likelihood of a misfire and the likelihood of a rocket launch are slim, and you can guess which one is probably more destructive. *shakes his fist at the Swiss*

I have to admit that when I first posted this entry it didn’t occur to me that a misfired flare could potentially set someone’s house on fire and I felt pretty stupid the moment someone pointed out what should be an obvious potential problem.

The initial few posts seemed to be pointing out what an idiot I was for thinking that deploying the system was a good idea, but then the tide seemed to change as folks started debating the risk/benefit aspect of using the system and I’ve learned quite a bit along the way. So, I feel at least a little vindicated for putting this entry up.

Les, the obvious problem is people (and I use the term undeservedly generously) that might conceivably fire a missile at an airliner and make it crash in a densely populated area.

The two questions surrounding the article are straightforward to state: Have the Swiss published their risk analysis and what is the actual motivation behind their decision. What’s the Ursache and what’s the Anlass…