HOUSTON, Texas USA — Shortly after takeoff yesterday morning, the pilot of Continental Flight 1544 reported seeing a rapidly moving object with a thick smoke trail closing in on his aircraft and shooting past his cockpit window.

According to some of the crew and passengers aboard Flight 1544 traveling from Houston to Cleveland, it appeared like some type of missile was headed toward the aircraft. The plane was at an altitude of 5,000 feet and 11 miles east of Bush Intercontinental Airport when the pilot radioed the control tower to report the sighting. The object was described as "missile-like with a thick contrail," and traveling at a high rate of speed.

As currently being reported by various media outlets, the FAA is suggesting that the object seen by some of the 148 passengers and six crew members was a model rocket. This explanation, however, falls short in many areas.

One passenger who was aboard the plane and saw the object told Northeast Intelligence Network director Doug Hagmann early today that "it was definitely no model rocket." This passenger, who contacted the Northeast Intelligence Network after seeing news reports about the "near-hit," stated that she was interviewed by an agent of the FBI in Cleveland yesterday. She declined to provide her name as the agent advised her "not to talk publicly about [this incident] as it is under investigation."

"I just want you to know that the news reports are not accurate. That's not what I saw," stated this witness.

Flashback...

It was on November 26, 2005 when the pilot of American Airlines Flight 612 reported a “near-hit” from what was described as a rocket as the aircraft was traveling over the Santa Monica Bay at approximately 5,000 feet. Although the incident received scant media attention, the Northeast Intelligence Network provided an extensive investigative report on the incident, complete with audio from the pilot and control tower, at this link.

05-28-2008 01:53 PM  #1
R2K Certified Level Three   Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 212	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Imagine if a jet pilot had a proper aerospace history education?

05-28-2008 02:40 PM  #2
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Darrell, Some eerie similarities between this and the other T'giving day incident (as Susan D. pointed out on the other thread). Looking at the link at NIN site, I noticed that radar info is abruptly lost at 8100'. Does this mean that it is getting reflections off the plume which contains metal? Or the device self-destructed? Anyone know? If one can track a plume, burnout at 8100' would imply an N or larger impulse motor. EDIT: Seems as if plumes, even Al/NH3ClO4 variety attenuate radar. The other deja vu brought up is of course Flight 800--little doubt in my mind that one was shot down by a Stinger or similar as witnesses described a change in direction as well as both vertical and horiontal flight of a streaking object that intercepted the plane.

05-28-2008 04:56 PM  #3
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1988	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline My thought, as I read either of these accounts, is that the description and range might easily fit a Katyusha rocket. Many more of them have been built and dispersed around the globe, than probably all of the commercial "N or larger" motors ever built.

05-28-2008 05:21 PM  #4
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Pretty good guess, after all what terrorist really wants to bother rolling his own?

05-28-2008 08:08 PM  #5
rcktnut NAR #76531-L2   Joined: Oct 2007 Posts: 43	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline It was an older model UFO with an emissions problem headed back home.

05-28-2008 10:27 PM  #6
H_rocket Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 499	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Seems as if plumes, even Al/NH3ClO4 variety attenuate radar. In the Houston incident, the pilot referred to a fast moving black plume. I thouight Al/NH3ClO4 burned with a moderate white plume. I had the impression that black motors use Zn in the composition which burns black. Of course I am not an EX flyer so I may well be way out in left field. Quote: Pretty good guess, after all what terrorist really wants to bother rolling his own? I had also read somewhere that most of the basement bombers in the mideast use candy motors as the materials are far easier to obtain the fabrication is supposedly somewhat easier than a useful APCP motor.

05-28-2008 10:34 PM  #7
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: In the Houston incident, the pilot referred to a fast moving black plume. I thouight Al/NH3ClO4 burned with a moderate white plume. I had the impression that black motors use Zn in the composition which burns black. Of course I am not an EX flyer so I may well be way out in left field. I had also read somewhere that most of the basement bombers in the mideast use candy motors as the materials are far easier to obtain the fabrication is supposedly somewhat easier than a useful APCP motor. Candy motors are not regulated except by FAA. Zn as a black is more green-grey than black. Basement bombers? . . . Left field for sure! Candy has doubled in price what with cocoa, milk and sugar. Sorbitol is still cheap! Rocket fuel makes for better lovers. Just Jerry

05-28-2008 10:55 PM  #8
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline The black factor if it is to be believed is mysterious--thats why I thought it may be a delay, until i read another article saying there was flame as well. Latest report is that the vapor trail was white. Here is a Katyusha pic--too early to have a contrail unfortunately: http://upload.wikimedia.or...Katyusha-chechen-war.jpg Reason I mentioned the aluminum/ammonia perchlorate was the naive notion that the molten metal in the plume might reflect microwaves. Curiously. I read on Wiki that the original WW2 vintage Katies used nitrocellulose for propellant.

05-28-2008 11:14 PM  #9
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: The black factor if it is to be believed is mysterious--thats why I thought it may be a delay, until i read another article saying there was flame as well. Latest report is that the vapor trail was white. "Delay" is barely visible and is light grey. A white exhaust trail (as opposed to a vapour trail) would end at burnout. If it was a rocket and double base it would be shorter burn than APCP. Based on the conflicting governmental reports, they are clearly lying. Based ONLY on witness accounts, this was a black program test and will never be reconciled. Not even by "plausible deniability". Just Jerry

05-28-2008 11:19 PM  #10
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Jerry, Beg to differ, but some of the full diameter and even smaller delays used by Loki, AMW, and CTI leave dense and gorgeous contrails--at least from the ground, have never seen from above. Now AT IMO thin, wispy, intermittent.

05-28-2008 11:45 PM  #11
heada Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 814	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Candy motors are not regulated except by FAA. Just Jerry The BATFE views candy motors as a regulated low explosive. They list KNO3 and KNO3 mixtures as well as AN, AN mixtures, AP and AP mixtures. The only rocket propellant not directly regulated by the BATFE is NO2/fuel and I fear that they'll add NO2 to the list as soon as they can. Today, you can fly G-O in a totally non-regulated(by the BATFE) format if you use hybrid motors, 3F pyrodex and non e-match ejection canisters like Newton's3rd, Pratt Hobbies or QuickBurst. The sad thing is, even if you're flying a G hybrid (or lower) you must still be HPR certified and use a minimum of 200 feet safety distance if flying under either NAR or TRA. Back on topic: How big does an object need to be to be visable at a distance of 2 miles? I doubt very highly that whatever object was viewed, that if it was indeed a rocket, would be anything but a large high-power rocket. In order to see a flame at 2 miles, that flame must be very large or very bright. -Aaron

05-29-2008 12:30 AM  #12
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline well, neglecting the flame aspect, limit of spatial resolution corresponding to 20/20 vision is one arc minute. For 2 miles, this would correspond to about 3'. Having seen N's and O's from that distance at Ball's, the flame is easily visible and not much else. Course my eyes aren't that good. Which raises yet another inconsistency--not only should plenty of people heard this, but seen it as well, talking here about people on the ground. The pilot estimates that it missed by 20'. Assuming a 30 degree angle of vision, a rocket traveling this fast should have traversed the field of vison in about a milisecond. This is problematic as it lies beyond what is normally considered the limits of temporal resolution of visual stimuli.

05-29-2008 07:40 AM  #13
DumasBro2 I Felta Thi Frat Boy   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 235	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: The sad thing is, even if you're flying a G hybrid (or lower) you must still be HPR certified and use a minimum of 200 feet safety distance if flying under either NAR or TRA. -Aaron Pardon the temporary hi-jack. I looked on both sites and found nothing on this, is there an "official" statement somewhere? It used to be hybrids were L2 sized motors but when 'I' hybrids became available people started to cert L1 on hybrids, this in turn opened 'G' motors to be flown LPR, 100 ft. distance. I vaguely remember some discussion on this several years ago but don't remember that all hybrids are considered HPR.

05-29-2008 07:51 AM  #14
H_rocket Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 499	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Jerry To clarify the "basement bombers" statement I made... I was referring to the terrorists in the mideast who build home made barrage rockets using what I had read was Sorbitol/KNO3 motors.

05-29-2008 09:49 AM  #15
heada Certifiable   Joined: Apr 2007 Posts: 814	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Pardon the temporary hi-jack. I looked on both sites and found nothing on this, is there an "official" statement somewhere? It used to be hybrids were L2 sized motors but when 'I' hybrids became available people started to cert L1 on hybrids, this in turn opened 'G' motors to be flown LPR, 100 ft. distance. I vaguely remember some discussion on this several years ago but don't remember that all hybrids are considered HPR. I misspoke. I remembered it as 200' but in fact you are correct at 100' which is still more than the normally required 50' distance for a G motor. If there were a "D" hybrid, it would still require the 100'. In this thread on another site there is a discussion about minimum distances and where they come from. The last post is what led me to believe that they were official requirements by TRA/NAR. I did not go through the NAR or TRA meeting minutes to find the actual statements. I do find it very interesting that Bill Spadafora mentions that he can't find the word "hybrid" anywhere on the NAR site. -Aaron

05-29-2008 10:05 AM  #16
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3202	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: I do find it very interesting that Bill Spadafora mentions that he can't find the word "hybrid" anywhere on the NAR site. I found it 29 times! http://www.google.com/sear...&q=hybrid+site%3Anar.org

05-29-2008 10:16 AM  #17
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: I misspoke. I remembered it as 200' but in fact you are correct at 100' which is still more than the normally required 50' distance for a G motor. If there were a "D" hybrid, it would still require the 100'. In this thread on another site there is a discussion about minimum distances and where they come from. The last post is what led me to believe that they were official requirements by TRA/NAR. I did not go through the NAR or TRA meeting minutes to find the actual statements. I do find it very interesting that Bill Spadafora mentions that he can't find the word "hybrid" anywhere on the NAR site. -Aaron BTW, There are D hybrids. I have one kicking around my LPR field box--uses paper grain and a whipped cream cannister. Occasionally see them on e-bay for sale. There are also these from the UK (scroll down to bottom of page): http://www.ukrocketman.com...try/hybridpersonal.shtml

05-29-2008 11:31 AM  #18
H_rocket Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 499	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: BTW, There are D hybrids. I have one kicking around my LPR field box--uses paper grain and a whipped cream cannister. Occasionally see them on e-bay for sale. There are also these from the UK (scroll down to bottom of page): http://www.ukrocketman.com...try/hybridpersonal.shtml How well do they work? I've toyed with the idea of getting one, however as far as I know, they are not certified and driving to an EX launch to fly a D motor just seems kinda silly. We do occasionally have ad-hoc unsanctioned launches where a few guy get together for some FAA notified LMR flights. I could fly it there. You gotta admit to the irony of needing to be a L2 flyer to fly a research D motor. Hey it just dawned on me that this would be an opportunity (excuse) to buy a Pico altimeter.

05-29-2008 11:46 AM  #19
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2794	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: The pilot estimates that it missed by 20'. Where did you find this info? I have not seen that. That's a far cry from the 2 miles and also is completely different from FAA statements that the aircraft was in no danger. Kinetic energy alone would have been an issue if this covered the kind of ground that we are talking about.

05-29-2008 12:38 PM  #20
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline This was from the radio transcript of the pilot talking to the tower and comes to me from James Russell--haven't seen it first hand, but is completely implausible for the reasons cited--at best would have been perceived as a streak of light if the rocket had machish velocity, which if it was still burning one would have to assume.

05-29-2008 12:41 PM  #21
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: How well do they work? I've toyed with the idea of getting one, however as far as I know, they are not certified and driving to an EX launch to fly a D motor just seems kinda silly. We do occasionally have ad-hoc unsanctioned launches where a few guy get together for some FAA notified LMR flights. I could fly it there. You gotta admit to the irony of needing to be a L2 flyer to fly a research D motor. Hey it just dawned on me that this would be an opportunity (excuse) to buy a Pico altimeter. I still don't know--have had it now for what 3 years, but yet to try it. There used to be a microhybrids forum. EDIT still is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microhybrids/

05-29-2008 01:43 PM  #22
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2794	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: The pilot estimates that it missed by 20'. Assuming a 30 degree angle of vision, a rocket traveling this fast should have traversed the field of vison in about a milisecond. This is problematic as it lies beyond what is normally considered the limits of temporal resolution of visual stimuli. Wait - is this assuming a nearly vertical flight path? What if he saw it 2 miles out on an intercept course and it ended up cruising by the cockpit at about 20'? If that were the case the 30 degrees of vision would cover many seconds of flight time for even a rocket at Mach 2 (including the effects of the plane's own velocity). I figure the quickest that the two objects would be closing on each other if the rocket velocity was Mach 2 is mach 2.5 or < 3000' /second. 2 miles is > 10,000 ft - which means up to 3+ seconds to observe it.

05-29-2008 03:00 PM  #23
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Sure all depends on relative angle of approach--not sure where I heard/read the from below--too much BS surrounding this incident to kep track. The best the pilot an do is 15 degrees down, maybe better from the side and down, however. Some of this is lost as the flight path is climbing (relative to horiontal. Lets depict the situation: The dark arc is the field of vision restricted to 10 degrees down (see http://www.boeing.com/comm...rports/acaps/737sec4.pdf ) t1 designates time of first visual contact, t2 the time of intercept. X marks the spot where they cross paths. Lets assume for simplicity the plane is flying level at 300MPH (450 fps). Assume the rocket is fired at 45 degrees with an average velocity of 800mph (1200 fps) Question then is what is the difference between t1 and t2?

05-29-2008 03:42 PM  #24
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2794	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Question then is what is the difference between t1 and t2? Expressed another way... how long is the line between the points where t1 and t2 occur? ( in feet? ) Assuming this and guessing at feet per second is exactly what I did. Since one report says that the object was (assume t1 occurs then) at about 2 miles from the plane - the shortest case distance is ~ 10,500 ft. That's assuming it went up to 5k and made a hard 90 degree turn - which is illogical. But that's the shortest distance it could travel and still start out observed 2 miles out and end up within 20'. Given that - I come up with several seconds of visibility. That assumes a lot of accuracy in the visual determination and reporting. Assume that the smoke trail gave the pilot the 2 mile mark and then we have a horse of a different color. At some unknown point along the line between t1 and t2 he noticed it and saw that the line stretched back to the 2 mile mark - that gives us a lot of unknowns and not a lot to go on. Face it - we got bupkis. We have no idea of what speed the object was moving at. We have a vague idea that the plane was moving somewhere between 250 and 350mph (likely not set in stone). We have no data on the angle of flight in any of three dimensions other than a vague idea that this happened in a way that was visible to the crew AND some of the passengers - which means it happened in a way that was not "head on" or purely vertical but was from an angle. But that's about it. Size? Dunno. Speed? Dunno. Distance? Maybe 2 miles, maybe 20'. Time from start to finish? Dunno. Altitude of the airplane? 5000' Location of the incident: 8 miles from airport outbound. etc.

05-29-2008 04:43 PM  #25
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Granted, lots of unknowns. The solution I came up with using some round numbers was surprising. My soln rested on the following assumptions: that it was fired at 45 degrees to a height of 5000' That makes the total distance about 7000'. I assumed a velocity of 1400' per second. That means it covered the time in 5 seconds, t2 on the pic. This would put the jet out horizontally another 5*450 feet=2250'. Total distance close to 2 miles away then. The rocket had component velocities of 1000'/s on both axes. This then suggested that the horizontal distance at first visual contact would be: 7250-t(Vjet+Vrocket-x) and the vertical distace 5000-t*Vrocket-y The y/x ratio should equal the tan(10) so (5000-1000t)/(7250-1450t)=tan(10)=0.176 =5.02 sec. In other words never saw it. Maybe someone would be so kind as to point out the error of my ways...

05-30-2008 09:03 AM  #26
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2794	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Granted, lots of unknowns. The solution I came up with using some round numbers was surprising. My soln rested on the following assumptions: that it was fired at 45 degrees to a height of 5000' That makes the total distance about 7000'. I assumed a velocity of 1400' per second. That means it covered the time in 5 seconds, t2 on the pic. This would put the jet out horizontally another 5*450 feet=2250'. Total distance close to 2 miles away then. The rocket had component velocities of 1000'/s on both axes. This then suggested that the horizontal distance at first visual contact would be: 7250-t(Vjet+Vrocket-x) and the vertical distace 5000-t*Vrocket-y The y/x ratio should equal the tan(10) so (5000-1000t)/(7250-1450t)=tan(10)=0.176 =5.02 sec. In other words never saw it. Maybe someone would be so kind as to point out the error of my ways... John I'm confused... your saying 5 seconds. When I calculated this it came out to .25 seconds - but that seems intuitively wrong since we know the rocket is moving for longer than that. Either way - well within the perceptual limits of a human. Granted to 1/4 second version would be quite fast and would leave little time for observation beyond "What the heck!". EDIT: Wait... you're saying that the rocket would be in flight for 5.02 seconds before he saw it. I'm not following this at all. I'm confused and stumped.

05-30-2008 09:37 AM  #27
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline When I went to LDRS Lucerne Saturday morning I observed a high performance rocket launched "at" a low flying commercial aircraft. Keep in mind I have been flying at Lucerne since the 60's. This was the lowest flying commercial aircraft I had ever seen there. The pilot was obviously checking out the Notam activity. It happens. But the RSO either failed to check for aircraft or flew anyway assuming rocket performance and aircraft height were a mismatch. Keep in mind TRA ranges are flight control Nazi's and they push the button FOR YOU. In this particular case the rocket was announced as one of the higher flying of the day, something like a 54mm or 75mm L in a minimum diameter rocket. The flight went directly toward the low flying aircraft (guessing now about 10-15,000 feet AGL). To my knowledge that incident was not reported and in my view is a more likely candidate for the exact type of report here. Until about 5 years ago I could see such a rocket at about 7000 feet altitude, but only if I could follow it. Once lost I cannot refind it nor can I pick it out of a vast sky. Jerry

05-30-2008 10:30 AM  #28
UncleVanya If pigs had fins...   Joined: Sep 2007 Posts: 2794	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Until about 5 years ago I could see such a rocket at about 7000 feet altitude, but only if I could follow it. Once lost I cannot refind it nor can I pick it out of a vast sky. My eyes are failing me - but they have been a problem since I was in my early 20's. That said... if the rocket was still pushing visible smoke out the tail I could track it to 7K. Once it stops pumping out the smoke... I'm done. As long as there is complete trail from ground to sky I'm great - once that trail is gone I have a lot of trouble keeping it in view.

05-30-2008 06:37 PM  #29
SpartaChris Certified Certifiable   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 127	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Keep in mind TRA ranges are flight control Nazi's and they push the button FOR YOU. Jerry That's not true at all. Yes, that specific club runs their launches that way, but not all of them do.

05-30-2008 10:23 PM  #30
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: That's not true at all. Yes, that specific club runs their launches that way, but not all of them do. I never did. LDRS.

06-01-2008 09:41 AM  #31
roadkill Definitely Certifiable...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 25	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Let me take a stab at what it really was: 'cylindrical missile-like object, visible flame at 5000'...' And yes, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat...

06-01-2008 11:10 AM  #32
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: John I'm confused... your saying 5 seconds. When I calculated this it came out to .25 seconds - but that seems intuitively wrong since we know the rocket is moving for longer than that. Either way - well within the perceptual limits of a human. Granted to 1/4 second version would be quite fast and would leave little time for observation beyond "What the heck!". EDIT: Wait... you're saying that the rocket would be in flight for 5.02 seconds before he saw it. I'm not following this at all. I'm confused and stumped. Well it was based on a bunch of assumptions, the most important of which to this analysis was that the rocket was fired from somewhere along the flight path. Even when we let the angle deviate significantly from vertical, ie 45 degrees the plane would be virtually blind to the rocket. Sadly, what the math suggests to me is that it was not a harmless amateur rocket--but aimed at the plane and the intercept angle was fairly shallow on at least one axis in order for both crew and passengers to get more than a glimpse of something streaking by. A Stinger as Susan suggests has the range to do this. A lot fell into enemy hands back in the 80's. Have'y heard diddly about the incident since. I'll spare you the details of the math, maybe another pic will suffice......

06-01-2008 12:27 PM  #33
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: Let me take a stab at what it really was: 'cylindrical missile-like object, visible flame at 5000'...' One thing this site could do is collect all the original information ever presented on this topic, by authorities, witnesses, and such, then do FOIR to obtain publicly available information such as investigation reports and legal filings. Let's see if there is any there there. Just Jerry

06-01-2008 06:33 PM  #34
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: One thing this site could do is collect all the original information ever presented on this topic, by authorities, witnesses, and such, then do FOIR to obtain publicly available information such as investigation reports and legal filings. Let's see if there is any there there. Just Jerry Last thing I need is a closer look at my tax returns Besides unless I miss my guess, such a FOIR will be denied prima fascia on basis of Homeland security.

06-01-2008 07:39 PM  #35
roadkill Definitely Certifiable...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 25	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline As per both Federation of American Scientists and Global Security dot org websites we indeed shipped the early model Stingers to mujahedeens in Afganistan and contras in Nicaragua by the hundreds... They also state that the early models had only about 30% success rate when fired on an oblique angle at an approacing target. Figuring in this one and the previous incident in California, statistically the next one's likely to be a hit.. Hope not...

06-01-2008 08:09 PM  #36
Just Jerry Freeform rockets advocate   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1115	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: As per both Federation of American Scientists and Global Security dot org websites we indeed shipped the early model Stingers to mujahedeens in Afganistan and contras in Nicaragua by the hundreds... They also state that the early models had only about 30% success rate when fired on an oblique angle at an approacing target. Figuring in this one and the previous incident in California, statistically the next one's likely to be a hit.. Hope not... The Stingers I am aware of have a battery designed to go bad after 2 years ON PURPOSE. Designed also to be nearly impossible to replace, reengineer or bypass. Just Jerry

06-02-2008 04:19 PM  #37
denverdoc Rana sapiens   Joined: Aug 2007 Posts: 2815	Re: Feds mum on "missile" incident involving passenger airline Quote: