View Full Version : London Airspace Restricted/security Alert
Dash-7 lover
2nd Mar 2010, 09:48
Just heard from various sources that there's in incident ongoing involving and aircraft/security and London Airspace/gatwick? Flow aren't giving too much away?
flyerman2020
2nd Mar 2010, 09:52
Just got a txt from my girlfriend who is a pilot.
It's an AA aircraft (American 78 call sign) on finals now. Had a flight deck security breach. Flow into LHR has been reduced to nil......
flyerman2020
2nd Mar 2010, 09:58
the a/c has landed....
first_solo
2nd Mar 2010, 10:03
CFMU status is downgraded again. Still no details there
Dash-7 lover
2nd Mar 2010, 10:04
AAL78 767-300 from DFW. Glad all is well.
A women tried to break into the cockpit.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
2nd Mar 2010, 10:48
Seems a bit OTT. Why didn't the crew simply tell ATC what had happened so that traffic could have continued with minimum delay?
As a guess, even if you pacify and handcuff the culprit you are not certain that there isnt a silent accomplice about to spring into action.
lexoncd
2nd Mar 2010, 10:55
Did they know she was alone? Could they believe the report from the CC? What if they were being taken hostage? All kinds of scenarios sadly in this day and age but better safe than sorry...
Scenario is terrorists use a normal loking drunk woman to lure crew out etc etc et add your own next bit...
Sure it will turn out to be the resultt of booze/drugs who knows what.
oncemorealoft
2nd Mar 2010, 11:13
My sources at LHR tell me that the lady passenger was reportedly emotionally disturbed and calmed by flight attendants. The captain, as a precaution, requested a priority approach to LHR as a result of the attempted flight deck entry and the lady's mental state but he advised that the situation was under control and no further assistance was required other than for police to meet the aircraft on arrival as is routine for any disruptive passenger.
Presumably at this point, due to the reports of attempted flight deck access, standard procedures kicked in although those onboard the aircraft were unaware of a fighter escort and none was visible on arrival at LHR as I saw the aircraft land.
Groundloop
2nd Mar 2010, 11:30
That could hav explained the two small fast moving contrails I saw over London just after 11.00.
blueloo
2nd Mar 2010, 12:04
two small fast moving contrails
they have coined a new term for that:
"overreaction"
oncemorealoft
2nd Mar 2010, 12:07
The two RAF Typhoons broke off over Oxfordshire and returned to their Coningsby base.
Agaricus bisporus
2nd Mar 2010, 13:25
Aren't people in danger of forgetting what that armoured door is for?
Second, and just an opinion based on nothing more than is written above, wouldn't it be very inadvisable indeed to request or accept an approach to LHR (over or close to central London) if interference was really believed to be occurring, or for the authorities to allow it. To allow that, and then shut down airspace and call out the RAF seems a bizarre mixture of ineffectual thinking followed by panic. On second thoughts, standard behaviour for a UK "security" reaction.
And further to the above point, if interference was not believed to be the case then pretty inadvisable to mention attempts to breach the door over the radio which must only result in utter and widespread pandemonium? Requesting a return for disruptive pax would be sufficient in that case.
I get the feeling that nowadays many pilots are far too free with bleating all sorts of unnecessary detail of malfunctions/difficulties over the radio to people who can do nothing whatsoever about it except misunderstand it and/or overreact...less detail is often far, far better.
Dont Hang Up
2nd Mar 2010, 13:27
We should've turned it back.
If one is going to overreact why do it in half measures?
:E
PoloJamie
2nd Mar 2010, 13:34
Incident: American B763 over Atlantic on Mar 2nd 2010, unruly passenger creates suspicion of unlawful interference (http://avherald.com/h?article=4280c874&opt=0)
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
2nd Mar 2010, 14:14
"We should've turned it back"...... Who are "we"?
"..utter and widespread pandemonium".. In a lifetime in ATC I never saw anything approaching such a state. I guess things have changed for the very much worse?
eyeinthesky
2nd Mar 2010, 16:59
1) There was only one Typhoon.
2) Those on board the AA flight would not have seen it as it remained behind.
3) The decision to launch QRA and restrict airspace is made by military and government personnel, not civil ATC.
4) If it was indeed a flight deck incursion by person or persons with hostile intent, why would a report to ATC that 'all is well' be correct?
Would agree that, having done that, to allow it to approach over London would seem a little contradictory...
I quite agree with 'Don't hang up' - it should have been turned back - it was only at 30W!
We do, after all, take aviation security seriously in the UK and if the US cannot control who gets on flights to the UK we should be firm.
Mind you - the whole thing sounds a lot like a John Wayne movie.
BEA 71
2nd Mar 2010, 17:44
I fully support Dont Hang Upīs & BOACīs statements. Looks like things are getting out of control over there.
If it was such a threat, why wasn't it put into Shannon ?
If it wasn't such a threat, why the fuss, Typhoon escort, flow restrictions, BA domestics cancelled as a knock-on, etc ?
Sounds like a whoop-de-do opportunity for the "we must have still more security budget" types to strut their stuff.
iranair777
2nd Mar 2010, 18:46
We must remember that the UK's threat level has been put up in the past few months
Agaricus bisporus
2nd Mar 2010, 22:54
If it was such a threat, why wasn't it put into Shannon ?
Because "we" have no right whatsoever to lumber Ireland with a problem inbound to UK. "We" don't own Shannon, fyi, and haven't done since the time preceeding Cromwell and William III (actually). Also, the Taeosh-thingy Irish PM and all other Irishman would justly be MIGHTY unimpressed at such shoulder-sloping selfishness and arrogance.
We should've turned it back.
To where? Back to USA? As if they had the fuel for that! To do what? Land in the ocean? Pox Nova Scotia with the problem? (We haven't owned them for even longer!) Come on guys!!
And what was a fighter supposed to do? Follow it (can't shoot at it until it does something really blindingly, terminally and obviously horrific) until it was plain that, at 8 miles final and 3000ft over central London it intended to solve all our political problems by incinerating the benefit fraudsters in the Houses of Parliament? And then do what? Make sure of it by shooting it down right into the target? Doh!
This is such a bizarre concept it makes Alice in Wonderland look as logical as the two -times -table!
That armoured door is supposed to ensure this can never happen - at least, that was what they told us. I guess they will now have to admit they don't believe their own rules. Interesting liability issues there...
And once a major alert is triggered they allow a suspect aircraft apparently with fighter escort to continue over central London instead of somewhere more rural. That ought to raise some interesting questions too.
Maybe there's more to this than we've been told, but the situation as described here (distressed pax bangs on closed, locked, bomb-proof armoured flight deck door; pilot cries "hijack" triggering closure of London Terminal airspace and major London airports, plus intereption by fighter(s) yet aircraft carries on to LHR) simply beggars belief.
Bill Harris
2nd Mar 2010, 23:13
At least this incidnet was handled more sensibly than the BA243 flight to Mexico City that was turned back in the mid-Atlantic last month.
The world is getting crazier...
--Bill
soddim
2nd Mar 2010, 23:51
As I sip my single malt at the end of a very pleasant night in the pub I cannot but think that aviation and alcohol are incompatible bedfellows. I have tried to enjoy both at the same time but one or the other has always come second best.
It seems that some passengers often enjoy too much alcohol and the resultant problems are not only a pain in the backside for their fellow passengers but also cause the odd security scare such as this one (apparently).
Perhaps it is time to protect the many and stop the few from causing trouble. Ban alcohol from passengers from airport arrival to departure at destination.
Surely we can all manage to travel without drinking alcohol.
Torquelink
3rd Mar 2010, 09:54
What happened to Sky Marshalls - are they still carried?
Surely we can all manage to travel without drinking alcohol.
Yes I can, but I don't want to. Why should I and the millions of other adult flyers who can enjoy a drink or two in a controlled manner have to be punished because of a very tiny minority? This school master's attitude of punishing the entire class because of one pupil's transgression is what is making our western society the nanny state misery it is today. Let's just stick to punishing those who transgress and leave the rest of us alone.
mathers_wales_uk
3rd Mar 2010, 11:42
Maybe there's more to this than we've been told, but the situation as described here (distressed pax bangs on closed, locked, bomb-proof armoured flight deck door; pilot cries "hijack" triggering closure of London Terminal airspace and major London airports, plus intereption by fighter(s) yet aircraft carries on to LHR) simply beggars belief.
This issues caused issues further than london airports i believe it was all UK airports.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
3rd Mar 2010, 12:29
<<pilot cries "hijack">>
Really? I'd be incredibly surprised if he had.......
Agaricus bisporus
3rd Mar 2010, 13:11
HD. =unlawful interference. Same thing, diferent words. He did, or we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?
Lon More
3rd Mar 2010, 14:19
That armoured door is supposed to ensure this can never happen until the armoured door is no longer attached to the rest of the aircraft behind it.
FWIW could the assumption be of at least some aviation knowledge by hi-jackers? Therefore an attempt to make it seem like Ops normal by continuing on the usual routing? In this case though it looks like coming in from the other end might have been better, but I have no idea what the surface wind was.
blackpants
3rd Mar 2010, 18:25
All this speculation is quite amusing...
Every decision made was made for the right reasons.
Please trust those who are trusted with the responsibility for this Operation.
DingerX
3rd Mar 2010, 20:48
Yeah folks, just because the American government have been pricks, we need to visit the punishment on all American-flagged carriers.
I've encountered this classic "collective guilt" logic before. To be honest, most of the time, the perpetrators were British, although the Danes haven't been far behind.
And let's make it clear: yes, when our countries decide to be asses over issues like security and immigration, us citizens suffer even more than the foreigners. We Americans are not as lucky as you in the UK who have such qualified and zealous security agents that flight crew need not worry that the flavor of cologne being worn, or any high-protein diet issues might inspire someone to forcibly deplane them on suspicion of drink flying. So yeah, turn us back, deny us entry, make us suffer in a way the lawmakers will never know (or care) about.
Roger Dixon
4th Mar 2010, 05:07
....... from who, from what?
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
4th Mar 2010, 06:48
<<HD. =unlawful interference. Same thing, diferent words. He did, or we wouldn't be discussing it, would we?>>
Agaricus bisporus.... You are, apparently, a pilot so you should know that pilots don't "cry hijack". There are other ways that such events may be communicated to ATC.
Dont Hang Up
4th Mar 2010, 07:49
All this speculation is quite amusing...
Every decision made was made for the right reasons.
Please trust those who are trusted with the responsibility for this Operation.
I'm sure we are all ears blackpants. Please expand. on these "right reasons"
Suspect security threat: "Land soonest"
Problem resolved: "Proceed as normal"
Where does "proceed towards and across Central London under severe ATC restriction" fit into the response reasoning?
AnthonyGA
4th Mar 2010, 11:04
It isn't really necessary to have actual terrorists or hijackers these days. All you need is for someone to "disrupt" a flight, and then the authorities will do the rest. Just arrange for flights to be "disrupted" in a group of major cities, and you can literally bring air traffic to a standstill, with no need for bombs or terrorists or hijackers or anything. Each disruption costs millions and sends people into a hysterical, self-destructive frenzy, so your goal is achieved with minimal risk and expenditure on your part.
It's a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease.
Ancient Observer
4th Mar 2010, 11:25
If the Security person in charge had a belief that a terrorist incident was underway, the plane would not have landed at lhr.
infrequentflyer789
4th Mar 2010, 12:08
If the Security person in charge had a belief that a terrorist incident was underway, the plane would not have landed at lhr.
So the fighter escort and airspace closure was just for fun then ?
That is what doesn't seem to make snese here - "something" is high enough risk that major disruption to LHR is in order, plus fighters are scrambled, and yet at the same time is low enough risk that the aircraft can still be vectored over london into lhr.
FullWings
4th Mar 2010, 12:38
The sort of reaction you get on both sides of the Atlantic these days, in situations like this, leads me to question the wisdom of telling anyone if you have a bit of a problem on board. How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.)
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
4th Mar 2010, 16:13
<<"proceed towards and across Central London under severe ATC restriction">>
"Severe ATC restriction" does not usually apply to an aircraft in trouble. ATC renders every possible assistance with navigation and subsequent priority in the landing sequence.
How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.) - you've got it:)
infrequentflyer789
4th Mar 2010, 20:10
What else do you expect to happen? Processes need to be started so that if an incident escalates, there is not a mad scramble to 'catch up'.
The timeline you give (react, plan for the worst, determine under control, stand down) entierly makes sense.
Having, and initiating, a plan to clear an airfield + airspace to handle an escalating incident of this type also entirely makes sense.
What I don't get is the plan being to use LHR. I would have thought that our busiest airport next to our largest city and most valuable target would have been the last place you would designate for handling such an incident.
Dont Hang Up
5th Mar 2010, 06:46
It was also deemed prudent to start the process of sterilising airspace, just in case the incident developed.
That's the bit I and one or two others are struggling with.
What level of risk warrants sterilising the airspace but then allowing the aircraft to pass over Central London?
That's the bit I and one or two others are struggling with - make that at least three. (Hopefully) the logical explanation is that the 'situation' was downgraded from WW3 by the a/c and it was deemed ok to both stand down the escorts and route to LHR rather than a designated 'emergency' alternate.
:confused:Why LHR?
This was an american airline right ?
Hank on finals:
'hey dude they got 2 runways at gartwick?
Every decision made was made for the right reasons.
Please trust those who are trusted with the responsibility for this Operation.
Come on, in every level of the business, from the screeners up to government departments, security is what you assign people to when they are no use anywhere else in the organisation.
MATELO
5th Mar 2010, 13:02
How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.)
Yes it will.
If the aircraft does actually get over run and the terrorists impose a radio silence and switch of transponders etc etc. Having a "pair of eyes" on the target may just prove useful.
No point in having a QRA, so that if it is ever needed people turn around and say "Well, it wasnt needed last time, so we didnt think there was any point sending it this time".
Get the aircraft airbourne and then worry about what to do.
I think the point he was making was that it will not actually help HIM!
the heavy heavy
5th Mar 2010, 13:38
BOAC,
the point is it's not really there to help him in the event of it being hijacked and having a hostile at the controls.
In my day we stressed about getting nice piccies of the friendly playboy reading reds and making sure we got the right ID. I lived in hope that i'd actually get to be involved in some 'clancy-esque' drug busting intervention! How times have sadly changed!
I was told by a good mate recently that before his new pups went on QRA for the first time he had a chat with them to make sure they understood that they could be asked to shoot down a 747 with 300 souls on board. He wanted to be able to look them in the eyes and be 100% sure they understood and accepted the responsibilty they where undertaking.
FullWings
5th Mar 2010, 13:58
I was told by a good mate recently that before his new pups went on QRA for the first time he had a chat with them to make sure they understood that they could be asked to shoot down a 747 with 300 souls on board. He wanted to be able to look them in the eyes and be 100% sure they understood and accepted the responsibilty they where undertaking.
Well, my responsibility is to keep those 300 souls attached to their respective bodies and in that light I, for one, will NOT be passing on any information that might lead to the launch of fighters. It's bad enough that the US Navy can't tell the difference between an A300 and a F-14, without giving them or their allies extra encouragement re: "problems onboard".
the heavy heavy
5th Mar 2010, 14:18
Full Wings,
if you can talk to atc then you have no worries. If you can't talk but you can follow icao visual instructions then your fine. If the guy flying your jet does neither then what would you have the relevant authorities do?
very easy to diss the boys in blue being asked to consider if they can contemplate doing the unthinkable.
BOAC,
the point is it's not really there to help him in the event of it being hijacked and having a hostile at the controls. - I was answering matelo. As a one-time 'pup' I am well aware of the tasks involved.
For full wings - no matter what info you do or do not 'pass on', if you have indicated that this sort of 'problem' exists you will be unable to influence further events in this arena. Others will decide. So, the choice is, say nothing or accept. Welcome to the post 11/9 world.
the heavy heavy
5th Mar 2010, 14:40
BOAC,
apologies if I offended thee, i'm not on boac watch and haven't instant recall as to your past. we where all pups once! I always took/used it as term of endearment in case you thought i was using it otherwise.
rgds,
HH.
awblain
5th Mar 2010, 17:33
Is the fighter there for the good of the crew and passengers?
-
I would suggest that its main role in today's world is to provide better information to decision makers on the ground; hopefully, for them to make better decisions, mainly for the good of thousands on the ground ahead rather than hundreds onboard.
Maybe the captain doesn't look like he's expected to. Maybe there's damage to the aircraft.
-
I presume the decision to proceed to Heathrow was sensible, based on reports from the fighter. As a result, the human inspection probably helped to reduce the net disruption.