Virgin 747 under escort to Canada

[billy34-kit]

...a virgin 747 from London to JFK, have been intercepted and is under escort at this time to Halifax Canada, after squanking the code for Hijack...

[Airbubba]

Flight Diverted Due to Hijack Alarm

The Associated Press
Friday, June 3, 2005; 10:40 AM

WASHINGTON -- Canadian fighter jets intercepted an airliner over the Atlantic on Friday after the aircraft emitted a signal indicating a hijacking was in progress. The pilots later said there was no hijacking.

Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Katie Montgomery said that Virgin Airlines Flight 45 was en route from London's Heathrow Airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, when the aircraft becan emitting code 7500, which indicates a hijacking is in progress.

"Communications have been made with the pilots," Montgomery said. "The pilots are indicating there is no hijack."

Homeland Security is checking other indicators to confirm the pilots' information, she said.

The plane will land in Canada, Montgomery said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060300539.html

[sinala1]

VS045 is operated by A340-600...

[Airbubba]

Looks like they are almost on the ground at Halifax, landing at 1513Z...

[kenaitch]

CNN now report a/c landed at Halifax 1506

[Taildragger67]

From www.bbcnews.com:

Plane diverts after hijack error
A US-bound passenger plane has been diverted to Canada after wrongly transmitting a hijack warning.
The Virgin Atlantic airliner, carrying 273 passengers, was heading from London to New York when US aviation officials asked it to divert to Halifax, Canada.

Virgin confirmed it had spoken directly to the crew and they were safe.

It said the plane's transponder, which sends information to radar stations and air traffic control, had inadvertently sent code used to warn of a hijack.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4607657.stm

[tyrant]

Surely a 7500 squawk would need some kind of human input?? but hey, i'm just a controller.

Comments???

JB

[Airbubba]

Looks like a quick turn (for a long haul airliner) they are proposed off YHZ at 1620Z, ETA JFK at 1748Z...

[Duff beer]

On Sky news.
"Problem caused by mechanical fault".

would that be the mechanics of a dodgy index finger.

Anyway,
Thankfully the Canadians intercepted him. Could have been a bit interesting if the yanks had had a go.

;)

[soddim]

It is not that unknown for the kit to give the wrong squawk - so don't condemn the operator - maybe blame the parrot!

[MrBernoulli]

BBC radio report this afternoon said the crew were aware that the transponder was sending 7500 but could do nothing to stop it.

It will be interesting to get the story from the horses mouth when they can do so.

[Mud Skipper]

There are otherways than actually typing in the code to activated it. Customer choice if they are fitted but should one of these devices fail then yes it's quite possible the pilots did not select the code and could not subsequently change it.

Hmm, I wonder what this guarded switch does..................

[3 slips and a gully]

tech glitch and acknowledged as such whilst still feet wet

nice of NBC to broadcast the actual 'words' of ATC/Pilot RT exchange steps to establish a 'noduff'...

:mad: idiots (media - not crew, airbus or ATC)

[None of the above]

BBC Radio 5 news at 5am (Radio 4 doesn't open until 0530, so I have a lawful excuse) referred to the aircraft as a 'Boeing 340'.

[EGLD]

Excuse the basic nature of my question, but....

In an incident such as this, what would happen?

So, ATC see the airliner has squawked 7500, would they not take this up with the pilots? or would they not do so, on the assumption that if the pilot could verbally communicate the fact they had been hijacked, they would have done so in addition to squawking 7500?

So, jets are scrambled, and at this point ATC, or the pilot of the chase jet, informs the Virgin airliner they must now proceed to an alternative airport.

At which point the pilot would surely inquire why this is required? would the confusion not be cleared up at this point? or is it then standard procedure to continue with the escort on the basis that they may no longer be talking to the pilot?

Thanks
EGLD

[Tan]

Jet feared hijacked diverted to Halifax
Faulty beacon

Richard Dooley
The Daily News

June 4, 2005

HALIFAX - A British jet was diverted to Halifax yesterday after a glitch in its transponder sent out a false hijacking alarm.

The Virgin Atlantic Airbus 340-600 landed at Halifax International Airport just before noon Atlantic Daylight Time under escort of two CF-18 fighter jets from Bagotville, Que.

It was met on the runway by police and fire trucks and kept on an isolated runway away from the terminal.

The plane was boarded by an RCMP emergency response team, but it was quickly determined the alarm was triggered by a mechanical failure.

"We talked to the captain and the passengers and we've now turned the plane over to the airport authority," said Halifax RCMP spokesman Constable Joe Taplin.

The plane spent about four hours on the runway before being cleared to take off shortly before 4 p.m.

The incident didn't affect other flights in and out of Halifax International Airport.

It's not clear if Canada's Transportation Safety Board will conduct an investigation or if the incident will be investigated by transportation authorities in the United States or Britain.

The plane, carrying 289 people from Heathrow Airport in London to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, sent out the false hijacking in progress code over the mid-Atlantic.

The signal was picked up by Canadian air traffic controllers, who notified NORAD command in Winnipeg. NORAD scrambled two fighter jets to intercept the Airbus over the Atlantic Ocean.

But after talking to the pilot of the plane, Virgin Atlantic decided it was a false alarm.

"The aircraft was diverted purely as a precautionary measure," said airline spokeswoman Brooke Lawer. The jet landed in New York around 5:30 p.m.

Air traffic controllers, NORAD and the pilot of the plane decided to land in Halifax.

"The final call on where to land was made by the government of Canada," said NORAD spokeswoman Lieutenant Jennifer Jones.

Lieut. Jones said NORAD has flown more than 40,000 sorties and intercepted 2,000 planes since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

© National Post 2005



EGLD

Read between the lines the U.S. was not going to allow any aircraft who had transmitted an hijacking alarm to land in the U.S. until it had been checked. Period. No one considers this to be a game.

[Sky Wave]

EGLD

If the hijacking were for real then the crew would try to type in the code without being noticed. ATC asking "are you are being hijacked??" would not go down well. I guess also that even if the pilolts said that everything was ok, they could be saying that because they have a gun in the back of their heads. Much better to get the thing on the ground and check it out.

SW

[BYOD]

Presently Squaking 6503. Change to 7207. Wind first no to 7 then last no to 7 via in decreasing nos 32107. Presto! at a moment you have 7500. 7500 locked in on NORAD's. :O Wonder Canada will send intecept bill to Virgin, like SIA got billed 3 million by US for Pacific A340 intercept. Ah, shud have known - Airbus. :p

[BEagle]

So put the XPDR to STBY when changing the squawk?

[BOAC]

So put the XPDR to STBY when changing the squawk No No No! This has been done to death before on Pprune. We have been told ALL transponders have a 'pause' function when codes are being changed so it is deemed not to be necessary.

It WAS SOP in the RAF in the 70-80's but things have moved on since then.:rolleyes:

[surely not]

BYOD do Airbus make their own transponders then or is another company responsible for them?

[Carnage Matey!]

Presently Squaking 6503. Change to 7207. Wind first no to 7 then last no to 7 via in decreasing nos 32107.

Anyone seen a modern cockpit with a wind up transponder lately? I think numeric keypads are the order of the day these days.

[Wing Commander Fowler]

Carnage Matey - plenty of clockwork Xponders about in modern cockpits I can assure you!

[Loose rivets]

I always went to SBY before rolling the numbers, but is there not an n-second delay anyway before it kicks in ?

[ia1166]

What happened to page 2? a lot of censoring going on here. Have to say i would have thought the ssr was digital as it is on most buses. Interesting was the fact that before the crew had even checked into their hotel, pprune members had already blamed them for it.
Any real airline pilots here who turn it to sby between changes? I don't. Do any of you guys have any real info or is this thread full of crop dusters.

[Moe Syzlak]

If its a VS 340-600 which it usually is on this trip, then the IFF has a digital keypad-NO requirement to go to stby. The -300 has rotary selectors. Now will you stop speculating?

[6_DoF]

Cockpit security lies with those in command. Airlines have not spent millions on upgrading cockpit security for nothing. We all know procedures so stick to them!

[Wing Commander Fowler]

Moe - If its a VS 340-600 which it usually is on this trip, then the IFF has a digital keypad-NO requirement to go to stby

I don't know why I can be bothered with this but - It doesn't have to be keypad to negate the requirement for going to Standby........

[Carnage Matey!]

WCF - There may be many rotary transponders out there but most Airbus standard fit transponders feature numeric keypad inputs. In the event of a failure to input a standard four number code they revert to the previously entered squawk. There is no chance they could squawk the relevant code by chance selection of wheels.

[ia1166]

Well it was bound to happen. Putting one wrong number in by mistake. How many times has it happened before 9/11 and been corrected with a call from atc and an apology from the crew.
No need to lynch the crew guys, it could happen to anyone if they're tired or distracted.
Maybe a time to review the software to require double entry of the hijack code.
Whoever the crew was i'm feeling for you guys. Hope Virgin see it for what it is.

[Ignition Override]

All the US needs is another Security Department to screw up things even more, with another link in the chain of command .:rolleyes:

Whe a King Air turboprop with the governor of Kentucky was on approach months ago into Wash. National, the crew flew according to their assigned clearances, but a fighter jet was sent to intercept because of a transponder fault. Apparently, ATC never asked the crew about their squawk, or that anything was causing concern. But then, with the US media as the source of most external (outside the company) aviation news, we often get little in the way of balanced reporting-never mind the controversies "overseas". Politics takes a front seat (only the "correct" politics), instead of information about an overall situation.

[rigpiggy]

They have a section in Groundschool wrt unlawful interference, and signals to be used I will not go into them here as they are supposed to be held with strictest confidence by aircrews. rest assured if they got it on the ground, they are most likely aircrew.

[ia1166]

erm,,, sorry but what are you talking about? Codes that are in strictest confidence? if they got in on the ground they are aircrew?

[Willit Run]

ia1166,
I think what riggypiggy(cool name) was trying to say; is that they have procedures in their airline that are supposed to be kept as secure as possible to prevent folks with notso good intentions from knowing their secure procedures.
Also, quote him properly, he said "they are most likely aircrew".
Anyone can fly a plane once its in the air, but getting it on the ground where its supposed to be takes a bit of skill that only qualified personel can do. I sincerly doubt any of the hijackers on 9-11 were able to land a plane with any amount of accuracy.

I worked for a carrier that had some A300's , that originally belonged to a dunnunda carrier, and they had a super secret switch located down by the flight bag for HI-Jack squawks. Well, as luck would have it, no one at our company knew about these little switchs, and a check airman inadvertantly activated this little switch. well, had this not happened prior to 9-11, things could have been nasty.

[Ignition Override]

It is very unlikely that any F-16/F-15 pilots are "trigger happy".
At least one of them has a wife who is a pilot with a US airline and others work for airlines as their main career or are possibly furloughed (thousands of US pilots were laid off after 9/11, and only a small fraction have been recalled-I know more than a few who worked full-time as military Instructor Pilots, or flew transports, fighters, various patrol planes etc). Their families sometimes travel on airlines, and they follow certain classified procedures. Might we assume that they have no desire to endanger civilians unnecessarily? One need not be a member of Mensa (the very high IQ society) to realize this.

Some misunderstandings may exist among many young civilian pilots, mostly among those whose knowledge of the military comes from gossip, entertainment television and Hollywood movies ('Rambo', 'Predator', 'Top Gun').

[GotTheTshirt]

Latest EU transponder regs will not allow the hi-jack code to be cancelled from the cockpit regardless of subsequent selections

[Random Electron]

GotTheTshirt, are you sure about that?

That's news to me, and I suspect most other readers of this forum.

[SilsoeSid]

Random,

Perhaps along the lines of this article;

"More recently, a TSA-inspired Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) sought to create a rule requiring about 200,000 private airplanes to use a special anti-hijacking transponder – that is, one with a special button the crew could press should someone on board attempt to take over the flight deck.
Once activated, the transponder would squawk the international hijack code and could not be turned off or powered down by a cockpit circuit breaker."

Source (http://www.avbuyer.com/Editorial/aircraft_security_May03.pdf)

Regards
SS

[Flying Fluffer]

would not like to enter US airspace sqawking 7500

[BEagle]

A dangerous over-reliance on technology, I fear? Such as happened when the Iranian airbus was downed and when the 2 Blackhawks in Iraq were mis-identified as Hinds before being shot down by the USAF?

As for ANG pilots not being trigger happy, I wouldn't count on it. My personal experience of a few Guard units in Turkey showed disturbingly that some of them did indeed have very itchy fingers. Not the old hands, but the younger ones whose day job was probably as an airline co-pilot. "They're like kids let out of school" as someone else put it.

[Danny]

Please give it a break. I am fed up of deleting 'Reginald E Spotter' type posts about revealing the hijack squawk code. It is not relevant and it is not secret. Anyone who believes it is or should be cannot be a serious contributor to these forums. :*

So, can you either contribute to the debate without the references to whether the hijack squawk should be published or not or else go and find a conspiracy website. Having your efforts deleted will only cause frustration. :rolleyes:

[radar707]

Just to answer a question from a couple of pages ago, ATC have procedures in force to confirm if the sqawk is a genuine 7500 or just an input error.

[tobzalp]

Was it actually the transponder or an ADS alert?

[ia1166]

Has anybody got any real info?

[energiser]

The transponder decided to do it's own thing, and was squawking 7500 even though a different code was actually being displayed in the selection window.

The flight had to divert to get the offending unit sorted out, as the US would not let the aircraft enter their airspace with the fault.

For info, it is part of the FAA rules that an aircraft with a faulty/inoperative transponder will not be allowed to enter US airspace....as I learnt a couple of years ago when our transponder went on the blink as we entered Canadian airspace off the ocean. Doh :=

[scroggs]

Well it was bound to happen. Putting one wrong number in by mistake. How many times has it happened before 9/11 and been corrected with a call from atc and an apology from the crew. No need to lynch the crew guys, it could happen to anyone if they're tired or distracted. Maybe a time to review the software to require double entry of the hijack code. Whoever the crew was i'm feeling for you guys. Hope Virgin see it for what it is.

ia1166, I'm not picking on you particularly, but like many other posts on this thread, this one demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the kit on the particlar airframe in question, and an assumption that the crew screwed up. As you almost certainly have no knowledge of the incident in question other than what the media have published, your speculation has little or no basis in fact..

The full circumstances, any errors made, and any remedial actions necessary will be published in due course by the CAA . All those who need to know the information will no doubt have access to it. In the meantime, your speculation is mostly wrong and in some cases unhelpful

[JW411]

Not long ago in my long aviation career it was not considered a good idea to put anything into the box "starting with a 7" without going to standby first.

Despite modern technology I have always worried about the "modern merchants" on my flight deck who totally rely on the fact that "the time delay won't let anything unfortunate happen".

Not many years ago ATC were not allowed to issue codes starting with 7. Nowadays the VFR code is 7000. It does not take much of a fumble to come up with 7700!

In fact, during my "day job" I was recently given the code "7764" for departure (from somewhere in Germany) and that was a bit of a worry.

PS: Having just read the edict from Scroggs above, can I just tell him that I even have a Mode S in my "fun" aeroplane so I do know what I am talking about and have put my money where my mouth is!

[Hotel Mode]

We got issued 7770 a few years ago at LGW, guess what went in the box. Lucky it was somewhere they get your squawk on the ground

[BEagle]

BOAC, you wrote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So put the XPDR to STBY when changing the squawk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No No No! This has been done to death before on Pprune. We have been told ALL transponders have a 'pause' function when codes are being changed so it is deemed not to be necessary.

It WAS SOP in the RAF in the 70-80's but things have moved on since then.

I was told of this so-called 'pause' function and indeed taught for years that it existed. But it seems that the ground radar ARP is what actually causes a slight delay when detecting changed SSR codes - there is actually no such 'pause' function at all! I did a trial one day with a co-operative ATCU and asked the controller to tell me when he observed the SSR code change. He did - it was instantaneous.

Since then I've gone back to the old RAF SOP!

[Hotel Mode]

I thought they continued broadcasting the old squawk continuously until a bit after the new code has been entered, hence the instantaneous change on ATC screens. I've been told in groundschool on 2 types now to never ever put xpdr to standby when airborne as it will bugger up yours and everyone elses TCAS thats watching you possibly causing nuisance warnings due sudden pop-up and other undesirable consequences. Also ATC will lose your ssr trace.

[scroggs]

JW411 I think you have misunderstood me. In saying that several posts demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the equipment on the particular airframe in question, I am saying that unless you have flown that aircraft, you are forced into making assumptions about the equipment that is fitted. Many here have indulged in speculation based on assumptions driven by their experience of aeroplanes with other types of equipment, and many of the assumptions are wrong - and thus the speculation is meaningless.

I have flown the aircraft in question - the most recent occasion was yesterday. The equipment fitted is not the same as other aeroplanes - it's not even the same as our other A340-600s. I have not spoken to the crew involved in the incident, but I am aware of some of the issues. That is why I can tell you that your speculation is mostly inaccurate.

[JW411]

I'm sorry dear boy, but could you tell me where exactly in my post was I speculating?

I rather thought it was more of a history lesson in common sense as we used to know it.

Indeed, I have to deal with THREE different transponder versions at work at the moment but they all have one thing in common - they all have a "standby function".

Don't yours? If not then it is very remiss of the manufacturers.

[Virginia Plane]

JW411,

quote - 'Well it was bound to happen. Putting one wrong number in by mistake'. That comment was speculation because you don't know the kit installed on the aircraft. We are not talking about different transponder types here.

[BOAC]

Leaving aside this latest 'incident', the subject of whether to select 'standby' is one your (airline) SOPs should address for the aircraft type/s you fly. A couple of the previous threads are here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89868&highlight=transponder) and here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114466&highlight=transponder). As you can see the topic is at best open to confusion.

My view is that care should be taken ANYWAY when selecting codes beginning with 7, and these threads highlight ways to do that. I'm sure that 'passing through' the '7s' will not trigger instantly - nor, I'm sure, would ATC (over)react to a resulting transient 'Emergency' type code squawk although it would, no doubt, focus their attention. I do NOT think selecting S/BY in a busy ATC/TCAS environment is sensible at all (unless ATC or SOP requested) and I would hope no-one does it.

[Check 6]

Our late model Collins Mode S transponders (forgot the model) have a built in delay that prevents a newly selected code from being transmitted immediately. This prevents any transient codes from being transmitted. Only the original code will be seen by ATC until 5 seconds after the new code is selected.

Secondly, because of ACAS (TCAS), you never want to select STANDBY while airborne.

Check 6

;)

[gowaz]

sorry late to this issue. been down route. day after incident flying into gander given sqauwk code ....0770.. room for error there!!:(

[scroggs]

JW411 your comment "Nowadays the VFR code is 7000. It does not take much of a fumble to come up with 7700!" suggests you beleive that the crew entered an incorrect code into the transponder head unit. In your post in reply to mine, you say, "Indeed, I have to deal with THREE different transponder versions at work at the moment but they all have one thing in common - they all have a "standby function. Don't yours? If not then it is very remiss of the manufacturers." This suggest to me that you are speculating that not only was an incorrect code was entered by the crew, but that it was done without putting the transponder head unit to standby.

Both comments confirm that you are indeed not familiar with the equipment fitted to this particular aircraft, however relevant they may be to the vast majority of airline equipment. Please wait until the CAA publish their summary of the incident, when you will understand where I am coming from.

[Virginia Plane]

JW411, you are quite right, I misquoted and should have checked further before responding and for that I apologise.

Mind you your closing sentence nearly lost you your apology. At least my mistake contained no vitriol!

Coming back to the point, as scroggs suggests above, if you believe this is a question of operating a transponder like any other then you are probably barking up the wrong tree.

[JW411]

Virginia Plane:

Thank you for that. I'm sorry if I was a bit abrupt but I was a bit hacked-off having someone else's remarks attributed to me.

scroggs:

You are reading things into my post which were not intended. I have nowhere suggested (in my mind anyway) that this incident was caused by a mis-selection by the crew. I have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or not nor do I particularly care.

I thought I was just making a general point that there are Murphys out there. You have just chosen to misinterpret what was intended.

The finger-trouble suggestion was NOT made by me.

[scroggs]

OK, seems we've had a misunderstanding-fest! Sorry 'bout that. :O