NYPD has Ability to Take Down Aircraft

[v85 212]

I think the issue that makes this situation different from upgrading sidearms or ESU long arms is the possibility for collateral damage (ie, where is the wreckage going to be falling). It would be interesting though to see an AG's opinion on whether this would fall under Article 35. I personally think it could in certain situations. I also would like to see if there is any federal law or CFR section about shoot-down authority resting solely with the feds

[helicopper 1,050]

I'm wondering when they will just come out with a Blue Thunder type helicopter complete with Sidewinders. IMHO, they probably have a couple of Stingers or some form of portable SAM system.

Don't know about whisper mode but there is now a non-military armed helicopter on the market.... The Bell 407AH is equipped with defensive countermeasures, 2.75 inch rockets, and a 7.62mm gatling gun. For the discerning shopper it will be in their Christmas catalog along with the personal submarine and other need-to-haves...

http://www.bellhelic...=highlights-tab

Somewhere I have some close-up pictures of the armament. I'll try to find them.

[mfc2257 464]

Don't know about whisper mode but there is now a non-military armed helicopter on the market.... The Bell 407AH is equipped with defensive countermeasures, 2.75 inch rockets, and a 7.62mm gatling gun. For the discerning shopper it will be in their Christmas catalog along with the personal submarine and other need-to-haves...

http://www.bellhelic...=highlights-tab

Somewhere I have some close-up pictures of the armament. I'll try to find them.

That's not your fathers Oldsmobile, uhh JetRanger...

[v85 212]

Deploying some of those to the southern border, I suppose. Maybe that will help to stem the tide.

[JBE 328]

Not to get too off topic, but that's hot..

[JohnnyOV 2]

Not to get too off topic, but that's hot..

I had no idea Paris Hilton hacked your account!

[INIT915 1,119]

I think the issue that makes this situation different from upgrading sidearms or ESU long arms is the possibility for collateral damage (ie, where is the wreckage going to be falling). It would be interesting though to see an AG's opinion on whether this would fall under Article 35. I personally think it could in certain situations. I also would like to see if there is any federal law or CFR section about shoot-down authority resting solely with the feds

NYS AG Opinions are non-binding on NYC, so it would literally be just that, an opinion.

But in general, if we all take off our tinfoil hats for a second, does anyone honestly believe NYPD would move forward with something like this in absence of the federal governments consent? And if they actually did do that on thier own, would they brag about it on national television?

[38ff 250]

I fail to see how a .50 cal Sniper rifle will bring down a airliner. .50 cal MG, yes, without a doubt. It happened all the time in WWII and Vietnam. It might take a belt of 2, but it's proven doable. A Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle, no. Maximum effective range of a .50 cal Barrett (M107) is 1200 meters as per the Technical Manual the US Army wrote. By the time the incredibly skilled shooter can take the shot to "blow it out of the sky", physics is already in motion, and even with a "movie magic type of 1 in a million shot" that kills the pilot or knocks out some control system, the plane is still going to hit whatever it's aimed at give or take a little. No one will overcome the laws of physics with that range/aircraft speed/weight.

On the other hand, if you want to launch a MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) AKA Stinger missile type of weapon, that changes things a whole hell of a with lot with a flight speed of over 1,600 MPH, range of over 5,000 meters, and a 6 pound explosive warhead. (all open source info) Now your going to interupt the flight path, and the physics of the plane is all screwed up due to the explosion. Even so, your still going to have Line Of Sight on the plane with relation to the firing position, and with all the tall buildings in NYC, thats going to limit your firing points.

And this is not even taking into consideration the whole "where the aircraft/pieces will fall and how many that could kill" part of the equation.

Edited September 26, 2011 by 38ff

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

Yet this is the same NYPD that is still using typewriters for reports, has some violent precincts covered by 2 or 3 sectors, and has stationhouses falling apart???

That is if you could FIND a type writer to use.

[bfd34180 11]

in regards to the post about that being a non military aircraft, im afraid you are mistaken the military designation for that bird is the oh-58 kiowa wich has several variations, it is primarily a scout helicopter but is being used in on going conflicts as a close air support helo and or a QRF.

but as for the nypd being able to take down a civilian aircraft there is no way any credible threat from an aircraft goes to the faa then to the us air force leazon then through the chain of command, the final say on aircraft shoot downs goes through the president, unless the aircraft has entered restricted airspace at wich time fighters would have already been scrambled and the aircraft hailed by said fighter to land or be shot down at wich time if the aircraft refuses to land or no reply to the command is givin it falls on the fighters co to give the order.

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

Listen folks. I wouldn't be too worried about seeing a Stinger Missle flying off a rooftop at the hand of an NYPD cop any time soon. They may have the capability, but lack the leadership to give the order. Lets remember. This is the same department that let rioting go on for days in Crown Heights before the Cops were deployed in a manner to actually combat the rioters. The same department that gives charges to officers that defend themselves against a violent EDP that's moving to strike a female civilian with a chair. The same department that issued their officers jacketed ball round ammunition because the term "hollow point" was to controversial thanks to the media, and not until the term "limited expansion round" was created did the officers get them issued. I could go on all afternoon. It is a tribute to the MEN and women on that job that anything get done at all. Because despite the RANK. The FILE still seems to keep things moving along. 165 years of traditon. Undetered by progress.

[helicopper 1,050]

in regards to the post about that being a non military aircraft, im afraid you are mistaken the military designation for that bird is the oh-58 kiowa wich has several variations, it is primarily a scout helicopter but is being used in on going conflicts as a close air support helo and or a QRF.

but as for the nypd being able to take down a civilian aircraft there is no way any credible threat from an aircraft goes to the faa then to the us air force leazon then through the chain of command, the final say on aircraft shoot downs goes through the president, unless the aircraft has entered restricted airspace at wich time fighters would have already been scrambled and the aircraft hailed by said fighter to land or be shot down at wich time if the aircraft refuses to land or no reply to the command is givin it falls on the fighters co to give the order.

Clearly you don't know me. I'm familiar with the OH-58 Kiowa and its variants. The helicopter that I referenced is a commercially marketed armed Bell 407 with the designation Bell 407AH (for, wait for it... armed helicopter). It is not the OH-58. The OH-58 is not a civil aircraft (lacking an FAA airworthiness certificate and while many are in use by law enforcement around the US, they are all de-commissioned, surplus -58's and none of them are armed).

This is the OH-58D and you can see it is a different aircraft.

[helicopper 1,050]

Listen folks. I wouldn't be too worried about seeing a Stinger Missle flying off a rooftop at the hand of an NYPD cop any time soon. They may have the capability, but lack the leadership to give the order. Lets remember. This is the same department that let rioting go on for days in Crown Heights before the Cops were deployed in a manner to actually combat the rioters. The same department that gives charges to officers that defend themselves against a violent EDP that's moving to strike a female civilian with a chair. The same department that issued their officers jacketed ball round ammunition because the term "hollow point" was to controversial thanks to the media, and not until the term "limited expansion round" was created did the officers get them issued. I could go on all afternoon. It is a tribute to the MEN and women on that job that anything get done at all. Because despite the RANK. The FILE still seems to keep things moving along. 165 years of traditon. Undetered by progress.

Without getting into the politics of the NYPD, the point you make about having the capability is the key. The perceived ability may act as a deterrent and the capability may never have to be implemented.

It's largely a psychological game and they're trying to play it to their advantage. Whether or not their capability is a .50 cailber Barrett or some other armament, the point is they're advertising that they can take down an airplane so someone doesn't try to attack the city by airplane agian. That's all.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Listen folks. I wouldn't be too worried about seeing a Stinger Missle flying off a rooftop at the hand of an NYPD cop any time soon. They may have the capability, but lack the leadership to give the order. Lets remember. This is the same department that let rioting go on for days in Crown Heights before the Cops were deployed in a manner to actually combat the rioters. The same department that gives charges to officers that defend themselves against a violent EDP that's moving to strike a female civilian with a chair. The same department that issued their officers jacketed ball round ammunition because the term "hollow point" was to controversial thanks to the media, and not until the term "limited expansion round" was created did the officers get them issued. I could go on all afternoon. It is a tribute to the MEN and women on that job that anything get done at all. Because despite the RANK. The FILE still seems to keep things moving along. 165 years of traditon. Undetered by progress.

Right, that's a good point. An NYPD Officer can't shoot a gang member in a shootout without being arrested by IA and investigated by the Justice Dept. for civil rights violations half the time, this would be a legal nightmare for them.

[bfd34180 11]

ok so i was mistaken sorry for that, thanks for clarifying that helicopper

[38ff 250]

If the NYPD wants to say they have the capabilty, then they should put on a demo showing that they A) have the tools and skills and can deploy the same to put rounds on target. Words are semi decent deterents, but when you show off the capability, that speaks volumes.

You dont have to give away all the details on your tactics, techniques and proceedures, but if you put on a demo, invite news reporters MINUS cameras. Then they can say "We were at a demo of the NYPD shooting down a drone aircraft today, and while I cant show you video or go into detail about how it happened, rest assured it did happen and works as advertised" Thats a much better deterent that still does not give away the details as to the specifics, but shows you can do what you say you can do, and doesnt come from someone inside the agency.

[SECTMB 612]

I guess I'm missing something here. If a vehicle, car of truck, presumably loaded with explosives, is heading into a planned collision with a structure, etc., it would be ok for the police to 'open fire' to 'take out' the vehicle before it completes its mission, but they can't do the same if its a plane?

Would they have to stop firing on the vehicle if it hits a bump and becomes airborne for a few feet?

It's nice to think the military can intervene, but on 9/11 all the military jets that were scrambled lacked armament. Has that changed since 9/11? Is the military now ready to do battle on a moments notice?

Part of the underlying theme that I took away from the 60 minutes interview was that NYC was saying to the Feds, 'thanks but no thanks, despite all your resources we're not going to rely on you, or count on you to take care of our business'

[Bull McCaffrey 162]

I fail to see how a .50 cal Sniper rifle will bring down a airliner. .50 cal MG, yes, without a doubt. It happened all the time in WWII and Vietnam. It might take a belt of 2, but it's proven doable. A Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle, no. Maximum effective range of a .50 cal Barrett (M107) is 1200 meters as per the Technical Manual the US Army wrote. By the time the incredibly skilled shooter can take the shot to "blow it out of the sky", physics is already in motion, and even with a "movie magic type of 1 in a million shot" that kills the pilot or knocks out some control system, the plane is still going to hit whatever it's aimed at give or take a little. No one will overcome the laws of physics with that range/aircraft speed/weight.

Actually the Barrett SASR and the M107A1 variant have the ability to put accurate fire on targets (max effective) at a range of 1800 meters but they regularly reach 2000+ in the hands of trained (usually military) snipers.

As far as PD's capability to shoot or not shoot down aircraft, who cares? The media has taken a quote from the PC of a very progressive department when it comes to fighting terrorism and they're in a firestorm over his comments. Officers are prevented from shooting at cars that are trying to run them over, do you think that they will authorize anyone to knock a plane out of the sky? Think about it. If they have the means then good for them, if not hopefully no one calls their bluff.

[AMISHFF 26]

Once they shoot them down it will be one hell of a rescue.

[voltage1256 42]

A pilot on another forum brought up this question, which I am curious about, as I know there have been some back and forth arguments about who really has the authority to take down an aircraft. This isn't to start anything but I myself am curious... How would the NYPD have authority in Federally Controlled Airspace? there must be a chain of command I am failing to see.

[Bull McCaffrey 162]

Once they shoot them down it will be one hell of a rescue.

Maybe they will all get Macy's for the recovery.

[ny10570 745]

They NYPD will not be shooting down any aircraft!!!! No matter what system they use, they need to get it deployed in time. How much of a heads up would they have?? Even if it was an armed helicopter waiting at Floyd Bennett, how soon could it get airborne over midtown? if its a surface based system are they mounting it atop several buildings scattered across the city or is it sitting at the WTC command traillers waiting to be carried up to the top of 1 WTC? How long would it take to get such a system deployed? The timeline just doesn't make this a reality. Then include the politics and bureaucracy of NYPD as some of our contributing officers have highlighted and there's no way they're shooting down an aircraft.

[helicopper 1,050]

A pilot on another forum brought up this question, which I am curious about, as I know there have been some back and forth arguments about who really has the authority to take down an aircraft. This isn't to start anything but I myself am curious... How would the NYPD have authority in Federally Controlled Airspace? there must be a chain of command I am failing to see.

Controlled airspace only applies to aircraft that are abiding by the regulations established for traffic/sequencing/separation. If someone is illegally using an aircraft to advance a threat, they probably aren't abiding by these regulations.

I don't think the airspace or its regulation is the applicable issue here.

At issue is whether or not a vehicle, by virtue of being in the air as opposed to on the ground or water, is subject to different rules and jurisdiction.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/09/27/2011-09-27_plane_speaking_unlikely_big_jets_on_nypd_hit_list.html

[jayhalsey 6]

At issue is whether or not a vehicle, by virtue of being in the air as opposed to on the ground or water, is subject to different rules and jurisdiction.

Big difference being the potential loss of life due to where it chooses to come to a stop. Not many cars or trucks have the same capacity, not only of passengers, but also the amount of damage it can do once it impacts due to size as well as fuel capacity and velocity.

[helicopper 1,050]

Big difference being the potential loss of life due to where it chooses to come to a stop. Not many cars or trucks have the same capacity, not only of passengers, but also the amount of damage it can do once it impacts due to size as well as fuel capacity and velocity.

Very true. However everyone seems to be focusing strictly on commercial air carriers (a la September 11th). If you read the article posted by efdcapt115 (thanks, George), you'll see they're concerned with a much smaller target; one that can carry far less payload (fuel/weapons) and/or passengers.

As has already been pointed out, you can probably shoot at a 757 all day long with a .50 caliber rifle and have no impact. But put a round or two into a light general avaiation aircraft and the results could be much more effective.

[INIT915 1,119]

Big difference being the potential loss of life due to where it chooses to come to a stop. Not many cars or trucks have the same capacity, not only of passengers, but also the amount of damage it can do once it impacts due to size as well as fuel capacity and velocity.

Does the law, as it relates to the justifiable use of deadly physical force take into account whether it's an automobile headed toward a crowd of kindergartners or an airplane flying over populated communities?

[16fire5 693]

As you know Chris, when any inherently technical legal issue arises, we see 100% opinion and rumor, and generally no facts.

Really? Some of us brought some facts to the table. The DOD has been pretty clear that the authority to take down airliners comes from some pretty high up in the DOD. While this is a fact a couple of the members of law enforcement have asserted that this does not apply to them. I have yet to see any facts to back up this claim.

[INIT915 1,119]

Really? Some of us brought some facts to the table. The DOD has been pretty clear that the authority to take down airliners comes from some pretty high up in the DOD. While this is a fact a couple of the members of law enforcement have asserted that this does not apply to them. I have yet to see any facts to back up this claim.

Yes, really. Nobody brought any legal facts except the reference to NYS PL Article 35. If your referring to your own post, you merely brought a quote. While it may be entirely accurate, and I suspect it is, it is only tangentially related to the topic. Your article discusses not who might be doing the actually shooting down, rather who is giving the orders.

And I didn't see anyone from Law Enforcement state "this does not apply to them." (Could you point that post out to us?)

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

Generally speaking, any LEO shooting down an aircraft would have to have a real good idea that a crime was being committed ( terrorism is a crime) and would need to try to prevent the crime from happening. So, I guess they would be in the right to try to shoot it down.

Now that this supposed aircraft is in the apparent act of committing a crime, would not the Posse Comitatus Act stop the military from acting, unless it is proven it is an attack by a sovereign country (then I think they can launch and shoot anything down AKA Pearl Harbor) ? Then it would need the approval from the President to the DOD to act ?

From the way I read the act , the Navy and Marine Corp are not affected by this Act ( there is a DOD directive prohibiting them), only the Army and Air Force.

Hey, the other thing is just like saying you can shoot it down, may be just words may be the just deterrent .

Just my take.