When asked over the radio what his destination was, the pilot, a 10-year-plus veteran with commercial airlines and private industry, said he preferred not to say.
Mann said that under the circumstances the pilot was not required to give a destination.
“He didn’t say hijack. … He was trying to explain why he didn’t have to give his destination,” Mann said.
“We work in a hostile business environment,” he said, and competitors could try to use such information to steal clients.
The pilot was speaking about a “hostile takeover” of a company, said Maj. Roger Yates of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.
The air traffic controller frantically tried to verify what he had heard, but the pilot had turned off his radio, Yates said.

I'd say the authorities did the right thing not to disregard these
comments. If you are the pilot of a small airplane, and an armed
passenger attempts to hijack it (unlikely, but not impossible), you may
want to hint your condition to ATC without giving away to the passenger
that you are alerting them. That way they can be ready when you land.

Granted, this particular set of comments is a bit oblique, but it might
be what the pilot thought would keep the passenger off guard. Then, to
avoid hearing ATC say "are you being hijacked?", change frequencies.
The passenger might know about 7700 - ATC doesn't know whether this is
the case.

Now, an F16 interception is probably the wrong response. But I suspect
it hasn't been thought through.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.