The Curious Case of Yavuz Berke
posted at 10:14 am on April 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When a Canadian Cessna got stolen, it set off a chain of events that looked as though it would result in the first shootdown of a passenger plane over the United States. Fortunately, it didn’t come to that, but the mystery continues. What did a depressed naturalized Canadian intend to do with the plane?
A pilot who allegedly stole a Cessna plane from a Canadian flight school and was pursued for hours across the Midwest by fighter jets, was taken into custody after he landed on a Missouri highway late today and took off running, an FBI spokesman said.
The pilot landed the single engine Cessna 172 on U.S. Highway 60 in Ellsinore, Mo., at approximately 9:50 p.m. ET, and was caught by Missouri State Highway Patrol officers, FBI spokesman Rich Kolko said.
The pilot was identified as Yavuz Berke, formerly known as Adam Leon, a 31-year-old naturalized Canadian citizen who was born in Turkey, Kolko said.
Did Berke intend to commit suicide? He has been treated for depression, and left a “good-bye” note for his girlfriend. Perhaps he hoped to get shot down by the Americans after violating our airspace, but then why land the plane? Why not just nose it down into a cornfield?
For that matter, if he wanted to provoke an attack from the F-16s, Berke could have flown at a major population center. Instead, he avoided them, flying mostly over farmland. At one point, he flew the unpressurized Cessna to 14,000 feet, perhaps hoping to die from hypoxia, but then returned to a safe altitude of 3700 feet before he could pass out.
None of this makes much sense. Fortunately, the US has Berke and might get some answers out of him, but in the end, I’m betting nothing adds up except mental illness.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Ha!
Kevin71 on April 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Or, it was just a nut job doing exactly what he says he was doing. Occam’s Razor.
I imagine the FBI will find out. He has “disappeared” into their system for a day or two. No one is admitting to the MSM where he is being held.
Yoop on April 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Dear MarkTheNotSoGreat,
You like to make your own arguments and try to credit them to others, don’t you?
I never said “immediately”. Please find my post where I said it should immediately be shot down.
And then you go on to say:
And I believe my exact quote was:
which part of “warned several times to stop” did you not understand?
And somehow you stated that this statement of mine, a car headed towards a crowd of people having been warned to stop “several” times was equivalent to a car driving towards a city??? Are you nuts. Maybe in your messed up world those two things are equivalent, but I never said they were and don’t pretend that they are.
And yeah, I guess I am upset, upset that I have wasted my time with someone of such limited means.
b4itsover on April 7, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I’m amazed at the volume of paranoia. I’m not surprised at the level of ignorance, considering how few actual pilots are here. (i.e., people who know what they’re talking about.)
There’s absolutely no need for a test flight to “check out the performance of the aircraft.” It’s not a one-off experimental; the specs are well-known. Likewise, there’s no need to test the porosity of the US/CA border – it’s a sponge. Q.E.D.
I knew a SAC vet who got lost in North Dakota while transporting a Minuteman via truck. They were driving out in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night. a bit confused as to their location. (This was pre-GPS) Then they saw the speed limit sign – marked in Km/h. 0.0
Anyone who said “suitcase nuke,” please provide a link to a credible site that shows that a nuclear device can be made small enough to a) fit within the 800lb useful load of a C-172, and b) be small enough to load through the cabin door and fit in the 38″ x 48″ baggage compartment of a C-172. Because according to this detailed Wall Street Journal article by Richard Miniter, they don’t exist: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478
skydaddy on April 7, 2009 at 3:17 PM
At the least we can all sleep peacefully tonight knowing that he won’t be water boarded.
gatorboy on April 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM
According to the news video here the plane was “the long range variant” with 7 hours worth of fuel.
gh on April 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM
123 testing 123 testing
Wade on April 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Is Yavuz Berke an Al-Quaida Test-Pilot
Combines both aircraft performance and conspiracy theories in one tidy package.
Enjoy.
gh on April 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
If this guy was looking to commit suicide, he would have gotten his wish if just one of those F-16′s had opened fire on him. There would have not been enough left of the Cessna he was in to have put in a thimble and shake around!
pilamaye on April 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Oh, getalife, now you are expressing my same attitude toward the insane stereotyping that goes on with Palin or any politician out of the Ivy League school of American politicians. :)
AnninCA on April 7, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Ah, more details being released.
Looks like the flight path crossed into the UP north of Ironwood. So the F-16s that picked him up at the border were nearly at the Lake Superior Shore Line. The report says it appears that the Minnesota Air National Guard made the initial intercept.
That puts his entry about 35 miles west of me,, so the weather conditions, wind,, etc. I described earlier still hold, except at that time Ironwood was getting a bit more snow showers than we were.
The plane turned westward into northern Wisconsin and flew over into Minnesota, south of Duluth. He then turned back into Wisconsin.The intercept was turned over to the Wisconsin Air National Guard.
He proceeded south through Wisconsin and into Illinois. At sometime while in Illinois, or northern Missouri, the mission was turned over to the Louisiana Air National Guard.
Lots of F-16s in the air yesterday.
f course more information from radar tracking may change the whole story again.
Yoop on April 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Yes. Because strategically, backup plans are silly, wasteful things. And besides, we know that there is NO history of interdiction of boats entering U.S. waters and being searched. And just because a boat can be forcibly stopped without killing everyone on board is no reason to think it’s more likely to be stopped than an airplane is to be shot down. Bravo, Dave! I think this may be your smartest point ever!
And yet, as easy as I’m told it is to cross, the bad guys have twice (that we know of) gotten caught trying to get nasty stuff across that border.
Look, I think the guy’s probably just a mixed up soul, depressed, homesick, whatever, and I’m on record as such. I’m not trying to further any sinister theories. But I think this is an opportunity for us (and WA-HA-HAY more important the homeland security guys) to consider what exactly are the risks and ramifications if this WAS a test run. My question for you two is, why are you so opposed to people discussing and considering the ‘what if’s?
RegularJoe on April 7, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Because it’s nonsensical, Joe. A stolen C-172 is a lousy, lousy choice as a terror device delivery vehicle.
There’s another reason – we private pilots are sick and tired of ignorant people who know nothing about general aviation making our lives more difficult because they’ve bought some idiotic scare story or lunatic suggestion that a 2,500 lb single-engine airplane is a terrorist threat.
Yes, we interdict lots of trucks and boats that meet the profiles of drug smugglers. But lots and lots of contraband still gets across the border. It’s a LOT easier to get across that way than by air, as Mr. Berke has discovered.
Occam’s Razor – use it.
skydaddy on April 7, 2009 at 4:10 PM
There are nuclear artillery projectiles. The Atomic Cannon is only an 11 inch gun. And planes loaded beyond maximum gross aircraft weight have been known to fly.
.
Late model missiles can home in on the heat generated by air friction of subsonic jets. But even if the Sidewinder missile can’t track a C-172, The AIM-7 Sparrow can.
darktood on April 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I dunno, so far the Cessna penetration rate is 100%. He let himself get caught, but that’s irrelevant to the discussion. He got his plane into U.S. airspace and kept a passle of F16s busy for a while. I leave it to strategic planners to figure out how important that is.
Boo-freakin’-hoo. Those of us who fly commercial have been a little inconvenienced also, if you haven’t read about it. Go back to 9/10/01, and jet liners crashing into the WTC would have sounded like an idiotic scare story. Pardon me if I place my free speech rights ahead of your private piloting convenience.
I assume you are using the common understanding of Occam’s razor, that ‘the simplest explanation is usually the right one’. You know the old saying, “when your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail”? Occam’s razor is good for determining the most likely case (and I’ve used it — as I’ve said repeatedly — to make the case that this is most likely N-O-T terrorism related).
But that doesn’t mean the simplest explanation is ALWAYS the right one. It is speculated that the crews of the planes that hit the WTC and the pentagon most likely assumed that they were being hijacked — the simple explanation. But that explanation turned out, tragically, to be wrong. Things are, I’m afraid, not always simple. So, my advice back to you: “the creative part of your brain: use it”.
RegularJoe on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
RegularJoe on April 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Just what I was thinkin Joe, well put.
Alex Martinez on April 7, 2009 at 4:49 PM
You should really study up on the first rule of holes.
1) you keep coming back to this discredited arguement.
2) I never objected to your use of the word warn.
3) What I pointed out to you is that the airplane in question is not heading towards a crowd of people, it is heading towards a city.
4) An airplane heading towards a city is exactly analogous to a car on a highway also heading towards a city.
If you still can’t see where your brain went off the rail, it’s not for lack of trying.
MarkTheGreat on April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The argument is only discredited in your brain as you keep leaving out important facts…like the plane or car is surrounded by people in authority and being told to stop…and they don’t stop…and if your car is a panel van headed towards even a “city” (since you want to take the crowd out of it) and the police are telling the panel van to stop and it doesn’t, do you really think they should let the van proceed all the way into the city and park next to the nearest federal building…is that what you really think?
b4itsover on April 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I understand your point here, I really do. I think you’re missing something, though: the percentage of stolen planes that have wrought destruction is higher than the percentage of stolen cars.
In the case of a stolen car or plane (or boat, or any other vehicle), every effort should be made to stop the vehicle without causing harm to its occupants; but there is a point, unique to any particular situation, where the vehicle poses a danger to the general public if it is not stopped. At that point, it has to be stopped. With a car, they can use tack strips, road blocks or (in the absolute most dire situations — a car barreling toward a crowd, let’s say) gunfire. Options for a plane are more limited. You can’t make a plane stop without making it fall from the sky; and once you’re actually OVER a city, falling from the sky stands to kill a bunch of folks.
I’m glad I’ll never be the guy making this call; but I hope there is a point at which the people charged with protecting us are willing to stop a plane that won’t land when it’s told to do so. If we’re not, let’s just sell some of those F16s for scrap.
RegularJoe on April 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Thanks Joe, well, said. Obviously I was struggling to get my point across.
b4itsover on April 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
drewas on April 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Exactly.
ORconservative on April 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Joe, I actually have flown commercial since 9/11, and I’m well aware of the inconveniences foisted on the travelling public.
What many people seem to be unaware of is the business impact of general aviation. It represents billions of dollars in economic activity, and enables thousands of employers to be more productive and efficient. But due in part to ignorant fear-mongerers, it’s getting more and more difficult. The latest government brainstorm would have TSA-like security at any airport that has ANY scheduled passenger OR FRIEGHT operations. That’s on top of the Large Aircraft Security Program, which wants to require background checks for passengers in twin-engine props like a Beechcraft Baron. Dumb on top of dumb.
Little privately-owned public airstrips – no tower, 1,000 feet of asphalt, a row of T-hangars (which already has had to install post-9/11 perimeter fencing and gates) – will now have to issue badges and all that rigamarole, just because the local bank flies documents out each night.
If you want to cross the border clandestinely, there are a lot better ways to do it than in a *stolen aircraft* – especially when the airplane is stolen in broad daylight.
9/11 was a case of thinking outside the box. The bad guys played on the passenger’s existing scripts for hijackings. Only Flight 93 had a clue what their real intent was. But a 757 carrying 11,000 gallons of jet fuel makes a pretty effective weapon if you crash it into a building.
A C-172 carring 50 gallons of low-lead?
Not so much.
You suggest that perhaps a cloud of these bugsmashers could be launched as a distraction, to distract and overwhelm our defenses? I’d respectfully suggest that the arm of the military that was tasked with defending the nation against swarms of Soviet bombers is up to the job. (At least until the next round of defense cuts.)
skydaddy on April 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM
My guess is that he got up there and found the plane simply wouldn’t fly that hight-the 172′s service ceiling is rated as 13,500 feet, and those service ceiling numbers are notorious for being overly optimistic.
And since he would have to stay at that altitude for at least a half an hour to develop what the old time pilots called “aeroembolism”, I bet that he concluded it wasn’t possible.
Besides, it’s pretty cold at 14,000 feet in early April. Even with a heater.
Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Has anyone see this guy’s mug shot?
He doesn’t look like any depressed person I’ve ever seen.
ORconservative on April 7, 2009 at 6:24 PM
It is very odd that a fully fueled Cessna 172 trainer is left on the ramp with the keys in it and unattended. At the FBO where I operate the trainers are only fueled about half way. That is plenty for the usual 1-2 hour training session and, besides, it’s expensive hauling unnecessary fuel all over the sky. Was the 172 in question fueled-up and ready for a cross-country flight? Maybe, but until I have answers, I’ll be suspicious.
My paranoia is not wholly unwarranted. The American people and the agencies charged with ensuring our security routinely blew-off reports and clues that, had they been heeded, may have saved the lives of thousands. Yeah, I guess you can label me a conspiracy theorist (at least on this issue), but I think we should be on very high alert and suspicious of everything now that the White House is occupied by one who has yet to be tested by our enemies and who is likely to live down to their every expectation.
drewas on April 7, 2009 at 6:47 PM
First I want to apologize for my snark-back comment. It wasn’t really very Christ-like of me, something I aspire to be.
And just to set the record straight, I wasn’t the one who suggested swarms of two- and four-seater prop-jobs. You’ll need to take that one up with that other guy.
Perhaps our conversations would have been more productive if you (and others) had not been so insulting in your dismissal of people with legitimate concerns — by which I mean concern in good faith, not necessarily well-founded. I readily admit — in fact HAVE admitted — that I’m not a guy who knows about this stuff. I’m a computer programmer who tries to keep himself informed and be a responsible citizen, part of which these days includes being on the lookout for weird stuff that could turn out to be signs of danger.
As an aside: being the ignorant sort that I am on these matters, I can’t begin to assess whether you’re correct about some of the regs you’re having to adhere to, or soon may. It’s certainly easy enough for me to imagine pointless regulations coming from that bunch in D.C., but I have no idea if that’s the case here. I only wish you well where Uncle Sam is concerned.
Back to the matter at hand: the thing is that those of us who DON’T know what a plane can do are a bit skittish about this. As a projectile, I’m aware it can’t bring down a skyscraper because I remember well the kid who crashed one into a building right after 9/11; but it might do a fair bit of damage to, say, a crowd at a ball game, or a schoolyard full of kids. Or not. I don’t know — can it? As a ferry, could it move a non-conventional weapon? Can it deploy it? How close to a city would it have to be to be effective? How high in the air or low to the ground? These seem like fair questions to me — some of which a guy like yourself is just the guy to answer, some of which require expertise in WMDs.
And then there are the really out-of-the-box ideas. Letting my imagination go a little wild, what if all he was really doing was getting some short-shelf-life toxin across the border, tossed out the window to an ally a couple of miles into the U.S., the rest of his meandering only a smokescreen? There are just all sorts possibilities, and I’m sure lots of things that SEEM possible to we ignorants, that really isn’t. But consider that a person didn’t have to know a lot about jets to realize that they could be used as missiles, if that person was thinking crazy like some of us are today. In fact, the guy who knows LESS might be MORE likely to think of crazy stuff like that.
As far as any of this causing you grief, all of the speculation and worry on this site has dealt with rogue aircraft crossing into U.S. airspace without clearance, then refusing to immediately land. I assume you don’t have any intention to do that. So look at the bright side: all those bureaucrats might be so busy trying to figure out what to do about that, that they won’t have time to think up silly hoops for law-abiding guys like you to jump through!
I wish you well
RegularJoe on April 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Who needs a missile? The F-16 fighter is armed with the M61A1-based 20mm Gatling gun.
Pole-Cat on April 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Even if his initial intention was suicide, amazing how many people who think they want to kill themselves actually change their minds when faced with doing the deed.
redfoxbluestate on April 7, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Why?
I’m sure the boy will have a long time to consider the answer to that question. First things first, however, who the hell is going to pay for all that jet fuel to chase him over hill and dale?
Me, you say?
Why? (That’s another question).
Limerick on April 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Mental illness or not, the
terroristseastern young mens club now knows of another way to attack America. Fortunately, we have the child President offering to kiss their arse. Sleep well!DannoJyd on April 7, 2009 at 8:24 PM
It would not take much effort to bring down most prop driven air craft. If a jet makes a high speed pass in front of a prop driven craft, unless the pilot is worth his salt, the wake turbulence can throw the air craft out of control. Most civilian pilots panic when their aircraft is suddenly inverted, leaving a nasty stain in the upholstery.
+
N4646W on April 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Waterboard him.
Johan Klaus on April 7, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Everyone is talking about a mass attack and how this could or could not be a mass attack.
He could easily have dropped a grenade or some other explosive out of his window and killed a few holy innocent civilians. I guess innocent civilians don’t count if the perpetrator is a Jihadist.
.
It is the government’s responsibility to protect the public and if a plane or a car or truck does not respond to a command to stop, successively more extreme efforts need to be used to stop the driver up to and including termination in short order. Otherwise, they will bear the responsibility of any damage or death of innocents.
FactsofLife on April 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM
FYI: Yesterday in MN and WI it was very very windy and the wind direction was directly out of the North.
Dasher on April 8, 2009 at 12:16 AM
It was a probe of our air defense and it proved one thing. He didn’t get shot down. Why not?
Herb on April 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM
That you believe anyone who doesn’t obey govt orders, immediately should be killed is obvious. You will make Obama so proud.
That you think any van that doesn’t obey the police is a potential terrorist says more about your psyche than it does about mine.
MarkTheGreat on April 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM
1% vs. 0.1%
Hardly justification for destroying the other 99%.
As has been pointed out. The damage that a stolen Cessna can do is much less than the damage a stolen car or van can do.
MarkTheGreat on April 8, 2009 at 8:57 AM
The comments from many of you guys is starting to make me believe that conservatives are as paranoid and bigoted as liberals say you are.
MarkTheGreat on April 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Again, I never said “immediately” but if you keep saying it maybe it will come true for you. And do you really think Obama and I are on the same page here philosophically? Really? What is it that you’re drinking that brings you to that insane conclusion?
And in a post 9/11 America you are damn straight that I believe a van that does not pull over when being told to do so by the police is a potential threat…and you’re telling me that nothing should be done until it reaches its destination?
Question my psyche, that’s fine, I think the readers can judge for themselves.
b4itsover on April 8, 2009 at 9:10 AM
.
Your comments make me believe that you don’t have the slightest clue about public safety and preventing terrorists and evil doers from harming innocents.
.
Your numbers game is insane. What if they could only kill 3 people? Does that make it ok? Ridiculous.
FactsofLife on April 8, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Did the mask come off? Is your real objection not about stopping vans or shooting down airplanes per se, but about an immigrant from a 99% Muslim country being considered potentially a terrorist?
You say paranoid; I say realistic and cautious — and unapologetic for being so.
RegularJoe on April 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I am with Joe, b4 and Facts on this. This whole affair is just too strange to dismiss as nothing important.
As most accounts would have us believe a 33 y.o. male Muslim immigrant is distraught about a lost love and decides to end it all. Of course, he drives to the local airport and happens to find a Cessna 172 fully fueled and ready with the keys in the magneto switch. How lucky for our hero! So he departs on a meandering course until he picks up a couple of F-16s whose attention he has managed to capture, then flys a peculiar route that happens to be precisely magnetic south until imminent fuel starvation forces him to land. He proceeds to the nearest convenience store for a bottle of Gatorade and awaits his ride back into town. When arrested he seems almost giddy with excitement and tells his story about trying to get himself shot down by an F-16. It all just makes so much sense, doesn’t it?
No my friends, there is more to this than we know, or may ever know. I don’t think the C-172 is the point. This was not about a specific aircraft, but about defenses, tactics, procedures, processes and perhaps equipment limitations.
drewas on April 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM
***
Remember–JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE PARANOID DOESN’T MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT OUT TO GET YOU!
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on April 8, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Dry run?
Disturb the Universe on April 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM
test
reliapundit on April 8, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Joe, speaking AS a private pilot in New York, you DO NOT know what you’re talking about. You “used” to be able to travel anywhere you wanted to but not anymore, all because the people in government have no clue about private aircraft. I had flown up the Hudson River and it’s a beautiful view (even now).
Why don’t you ask several of the airports surrounding the D.C area who have suffered because of the same government employees.
Imagine if the government said to you, “You’re not allowed to travel here…or here…or there” Your “free speech” rights are nice but OUR rights to travel SHOULD be the same, considering that there isn’t a valid reason to prevent us pilots from traveling.
HarryStar on April 8, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Gee, I don’t think they mentioned on the main stream news that this guy was from Turkey making him likely a muslim. It very well could be a dry run testing our defences or he could just be nuts. Only moronic liberals deny that muslims want to hit us again and are looking for ways to do it. It’s better to be safe than sorry!
CrusaderPatriot on April 8, 2009 at 10:57 PM
BS Ed. When a foreign pilot enters our airspace without acknowledging our calls unto him, the plane should be IMMEDIATELY SHOT DOWN!
At the time this occurred, no one knew if he was carrying any possible substances, like Anthrax, that could kill a large number of people. That possibility should not go overlooked.
I mean what? Does obunka want to talk with him too?
AlreadyKnownAs on April 9, 2009 at 6:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3