A question about the stand down order

First, if this is the wrong place for this, I apologize.

I've been reading about people being upset over the stand down order to review procedures and protocals. But can anyone tell me if "Alert Aircraft" were restricted from flying? For those that don't know, most nuclear capable fighter/bomber bases have several alert aircraft loaded at all times, ready for take off in a moments notice. It's not uncommon for a base to be on stand down for a variety of reasons. These days are usually used as a maintenance down day to allow much needed maintenance on said aircraft. A day off from flying for the pilots, another day at work for the maintenance folks. They can be restricted to a specific airframe or in this case, a weapons capable platform

Also, just because the Air Force has planes in the air doesn't mean that they're combat ready. Very few have live ordinance on board. If something was to happen, it would be alert aircraft that responded and most likely, the would not already be in the air, but would have to take off from somewhere.

Don

CJCSI 3610.01.A

www.dtic.mil...

AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS
1 June 2001
.....
4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.....

While America was being attacked Bush sat reading goat stories to children.

Cheney ran to the secret bunker to hide out.

Rumsfeld was in a meeting with instrutions to not be disturbed, but he was disturbed when a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

And by then the stand down orders had achieved their goals. The only three people in the world with the power to defend America were busy while we were attacked.

But was it always like that? I can tell you that officially it still is. The order has not been cancelled nor has it been superceded. At least officially...

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Malichai]

Originally posted by Malichai
CJCSI 3610.01.A


...While America was being attacked Bush sat reading goat stories to children.

Cheney ran to the secret bunker to hide out.

Rumsfeld was in a meeting with instrutions to not be disturbed, but he was disturbed when a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

And by then the stand down orders had achieved their goals. The only three people in the world with the power to defend America were busy while we were attacked.

But was it always like that? I can tell you that officially it still is. The order has not been cancelled nor has it been superceded. At least officially...

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Malichai]

I'm guess you're trying to say that had we had aircraft in the air that they could have stopped all the attacks?

I'm not so sure about the towers but might agree with the Pentagon. In any situation, it's human nature to disbelieve at the beginning. I was under the impression that while Bush was reading, he was briefed that 'a plane had struck the first tower', not that america was under attack. That's hardly an incident that requires him to drop everything and rush to his office. I believe that by the time the second aircraft struck, he'd left the book reading session (But I may be wrong)

The thing is that even if there hadn't been a standdown order, the Air Traffic Controllers may have delayed in notifying the proper authorities. Who would then take precious minutes attempting to verify the informantion because they didn't want to look bad blowing a whistle that might not be valid.

It's a sad fact of life that where people are involved, simple disbelieve in ones inturpetation of the data or equipment or fear for one's job prevents or delays a lot of whistle blowing incidents. The thinking is 'maybe this it supposed to be happening' or 'it's just a mistake, no ones going to XXX'. If we enforce strict guidelines, people complain, if we allow for human error, people complain. If the airline had sealed the cockpits from the passenger cabins back when hijacking was at its peak and adopted a policy of not complying with hijackers, maybe none of this would have happened. At least not the way it went down. (assuming you believe that this was a terrorist act from outside agents)

But I still don't think my original question was answered. Can anyone confirm that Alert Aircraft would not have been allowed to launch if necessary?

paraclete, I dont know that anyone could confirm that. Command-wide means everyone, but I doubt that if they were needed, they would not be allowed. But I am not a military person.

I am very curious as why you are asking though.

Are you talking about the recent stand down over the nuclear missiles, or 9/11? If you're talking about 9/11 we didn't have any alert aircraft flying on airborne alert. They were all sitting in shelters at the end of the runway. As for recent years we haven't had bombers sitting nuclear alert for years. STRATCOM took over the nuclear weapons, and they only put them on alert in event of a major crisis, or if it appears there will be an event happening. In September of 1991 the nuclear ground alert roles were officially ended.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
paraclete, I dont know that anyone could confirm that. Command-wide means everyone, but I doubt that if they were needed, they would not be allowed. But I am not a military person.

I am very curious as why you are asking though.

I have listened to people talking about the stand down implying that it was so we could have another terrorist attack. But I never read the original order and I know that wording can mean everything. My point was that a stand down order is not out of the ordinary for the military. And the Air Force is broken down to numerous Commands so Command wide can mean a variety of things. It just seemed to me that people were trying to stir things up without anything to back it up and I wanted to know if I had really missed something.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Are you talking about the recent stand down over the nuclear missiles, or 9/11? If you're talking about 9/11 we didn't have any alert aircraft flying on airborne alert. They were all sitting in shelters at the end of the runway. As for recent years we haven't had bombers sitting nuclear alert for years. STRATCOM took over the nuclear weapons, and they only put them on alert in event of a major crisis, or if it appears there will be an event happening. In September of 1991 the nuclear ground alert roles were officially ended.

I wasn't aware that STRATCOM had took over the nuclear weapons (I don't even know what STRATCOM is. I'm an old SAC, TAC, MAC man. They started reorganizing just before I retired and I lost track of the new units) Nor was I aware that we no longer have bombers sitting on nuclear alert. If that's true, then I'm wondering why the stand down order should cause so much concern. Do we still have intercepters on alert and are any of them airborne? If so, were they affected by the standdown order?

You guys are great, I've been out of the loop so long I'm beginning to realize that it's a whole new world where the military is concerned. This internet computer age is cool. Thanks.

The fighter alert force was still available if necessary, but they aren't airborne as far as I remember. They were flying CAP right after 9/11 but they stopped that after awhile. The stand down was basically to have a day of briefings about what happened.

As for STRATCOM:

USSTRATCOM combines the synergy of the U.S. legacy nuclear command and control mission with responsibility for space operations; global strike; Defense Department information operations; global missile defense; and global command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR), and combating weapons of mass destruction. This dynamic command gives National Leadership a unified resource for greater understanding of specific threats around the world and the means to respond to those threats rapidly.

A command headquarters of more than 2,500 people, representing all four services, including Department of Defense civilians and contractors, oversees the command's operationally focused global strategic mission. The command is organized under a modified J-code structure as follows:

www.stratcom.mil...

USSTRATCOM took over when SAC went away, except they took over the Navy Trident submarines as well as the nuclear bomber role.

Zaphod58, Thanks for the link. I guess I better spend more time on the net trying to Learn what the Air Force is all about today. Most of the aircraft I worked on are as retired as I am. Boy, do I feel old... er older.

Don

The Air Force has changed a lot in recent years. TAC went away and became ACC, SAC is just gone, MAC is AMC now... Most of the bomber mission, and a whole lot of the tanker mission is performed by the Reserves and ANG now... I was surprised at how much they changed so fast.

Check out the Norad tapes, the military commander actually said, we need to make sure this is on tape, then repeated his request to FAA to have fighters go to DC/NY, FAA wanted them over the Atlantic.

The explanasion is too much trafic they were worried about collision, the Military wanted them where they 'would be in play' if needed.

We're talking about two different things here I think. The original question related to the Sept 14, 2007 USAF wide stand down for a safety day, not 9/11.