Hijack? "Well, errrhh.... no, actually...!"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Age: 87
Posts: 1,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlink: Hijacking was an error transmission
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoerikwaggo
Age: 88
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hijack? "Well, errrhh.... no, actually...!"
Airlink: Hijacking was an error transmission | Traveller24
I have just seen a scrolling newsflash on eNCA to the effect that the incident was due to "human error".
I had to abandon my flying training due to ill health long ago, but I still recall the instructors pinning our ears back on how to set the squawk code.....
Assuming that it was finger trouble, what would be an appropriate outcome?
I have just seen a scrolling newsflash on eNCA to the effect that the incident was due to "human error".
I had to abandon my flying training due to ill health long ago, but I still recall the instructors pinning our ears back on how to set the squawk code.....
Assuming that it was finger trouble, what would be an appropriate outcome?
Assuming that it was finger trouble, what would be an appropriate outcome?
Last edited by Basil; 7th Sep 2016 at 08:44.
What a cluster#*^$, turns out there was an 8 second transmission from the aircraft that indicated a hijack - presumably the unmentionable transponder code, which the crew are adamant they had nothing to do with, but then the keystone cops turned it into a three ring circus, surrounding the aircraft with heavily armed troops and holding them aboard for 3 hours whilst they "checked the aircraft". Made to disembark, hands in air. Men and women bussed to terminal separately and then searched.
I get that you treat a hijack code seriously, but FFS once it's on the ground and the crew are able to get off and assure authorities there is no problem, very sorry and all that, it's time to fold your tent and go back to playing cards. One for the; You know you're in Africa when... thread.
I get that you treat a hijack code seriously, but FFS once it's on the ground and the crew are able to get off and assure authorities there is no problem, very sorry and all that, it's time to fold your tent and go back to playing cards. One for the; You know you're in Africa when... thread.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoerikwaggo
Age: 88
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is now more to the story:
Pilots did not enter hijack code? SA Airlink insists - Times LIVE
I'm not a pilot (my profile refers) but I think that I have a fair understanding of what a transponder is. Accordingly, I should be interested in hearing comments on the last paragraph. Is this a recognised fault and hazard?
I think that Spinex's reply is a little unfair, incidentally. It was pointed out that once the hijack alert had been noticed, the security procedures were unstoppable. Would anyone prefer a different protocol?
Pilots did not enter hijack code? SA Airlink insists - Times LIVE
The pilots in command of an SA Airlink passenger aircraft that broadcast a false hijacking alert on Monday are adamant that they did not type in the code used to declare the emergency.
The aircraft‚ carrying 72 passengers and four crew‚ transmitted an eight-second-long alert about 10 minutes prior to landing at Wonderboom Airport in Pretoria.
Under normal circumstances‚ the alert can only be triggered by the pilots although a radar fault could also be responsible. The cause is still under investigation.
SA Airlink CEO Rodger Foster told Cape Talk radio‚ in an interview on Tuesday: “The two pilots maintain‚ adamantly‚ that there was no intervention inside the cockpit that would have dialled in the very special code that would have depicted a hijack event.”
“Approximately 10 minutes before landing … we had a report at head office through our flight operations department that there was a hijack alert being transponded from the aircraft. This alert had manifested over a very short period‚ approximately eight seconds‚” he said.
Air traffic control responded as if it were a real event‚ as per protocol. News of the “hijacking” spread rapidly on social media until the airline took to Twitter to reassure the public that the passengers and crew were safe – although police had to thoroughly check the aircraft before they could disembark.
“Notwithstanding the false hijack alert‚ which lasted a few seconds‚ the mandatory hijack response procedures were activated‚” said the South African Civil Aviation Authority.
“When the aircraft landed at Wonderboom Airport‚ the police’s hijack response team conducted the necessary checks to ascertain that indeed the aircraft was not hijacked.”
Foster said: “We consider that there is some kind of an anomaly. We don’t believe the anomaly comes from the on board equipment of the aircraft‚ however that remains to be proved. But there is an anomaly in the system somewhere.”
Air Traffic and Navigation Services COO Peter Marais‚ told the Cape Town radio station that it was possible‚ although unlikely‚ for part of a signal transmitted by an aircraft not being properly received or processed by equipment on the ground‚ resulting in a false code being interpreted as valid.
Explaining how the signals work‚ he said various codes were transmitted from aircraft as specific radio frequency pulses. These were received‚ processed and decoded on the ground.
“In this instance‚ the radar system received the transponder signal from the aircraft‚ processed it and decoded it and indicated that there was a valid code related to this emergency‚” he said.
Asked if there had been false codes picked up by ground radar systems in the past‚ he said: “It has occurred previously‚ this was probably two or three years ago.”
The aircraft‚ carrying 72 passengers and four crew‚ transmitted an eight-second-long alert about 10 minutes prior to landing at Wonderboom Airport in Pretoria.
Under normal circumstances‚ the alert can only be triggered by the pilots although a radar fault could also be responsible. The cause is still under investigation.
SA Airlink CEO Rodger Foster told Cape Talk radio‚ in an interview on Tuesday: “The two pilots maintain‚ adamantly‚ that there was no intervention inside the cockpit that would have dialled in the very special code that would have depicted a hijack event.”
“Approximately 10 minutes before landing … we had a report at head office through our flight operations department that there was a hijack alert being transponded from the aircraft. This alert had manifested over a very short period‚ approximately eight seconds‚” he said.
Air traffic control responded as if it were a real event‚ as per protocol. News of the “hijacking” spread rapidly on social media until the airline took to Twitter to reassure the public that the passengers and crew were safe – although police had to thoroughly check the aircraft before they could disembark.
“Notwithstanding the false hijack alert‚ which lasted a few seconds‚ the mandatory hijack response procedures were activated‚” said the South African Civil Aviation Authority.
“When the aircraft landed at Wonderboom Airport‚ the police’s hijack response team conducted the necessary checks to ascertain that indeed the aircraft was not hijacked.”
Foster said: “We consider that there is some kind of an anomaly. We don’t believe the anomaly comes from the on board equipment of the aircraft‚ however that remains to be proved. But there is an anomaly in the system somewhere.”
Air Traffic and Navigation Services COO Peter Marais‚ told the Cape Town radio station that it was possible‚ although unlikely‚ for part of a signal transmitted by an aircraft not being properly received or processed by equipment on the ground‚ resulting in a false code being interpreted as valid.
Explaining how the signals work‚ he said various codes were transmitted from aircraft as specific radio frequency pulses. These were received‚ processed and decoded on the ground.
“In this instance‚ the radar system received the transponder signal from the aircraft‚ processed it and decoded it and indicated that there was a valid code related to this emergency‚” he said.
Asked if there had been false codes picked up by ground radar systems in the past‚ he said: “It has occurred previously‚ this was probably two or three years ago.”
I think that Spinex's reply is a little unfair, incidentally. It was pointed out that once the hijack alert had been noticed, the security procedures were unstoppable. Would anyone prefer a different protocol?
Last edited by Connetts; 13th Jul 2016 at 12:21. Reason: Correct typo
