PDA

View Full Version : SAS diversion accompanied by Typhoon


HEATHROW DIRECTOR
18th Apr 2013, 21:07
RAF fighter jet scrambled to help Scandinavian Airlines passenger plane emergancy landing at Gasgow Prestwick Airport - AOL Travel UK (http://travel.aol.co.uk/2013/04/18/fighter-jet-scrambled-to-escort-passenger-forced-to-land-at-glas/)

chaders
18th Apr 2013, 21:24
Ahh heard this on Guard earlier. We wondered if some Typhoon pilot might actually get a couple of hours in this month because of it.

Lord Spandex Masher
18th Apr 2013, 21:45
A spokesman for Prestwick Airport told the Daily Record: "The aircraft lost communications with air traffic control and followed procedure by making a safe landing as soon as possible.

Ummmm?!






Padding!

viking767
18th Apr 2013, 22:46
Typhoon aircraft from RAF Leuchars were launched today to investigate a civilian aircraft transiting the North Sea which had lost radio contact with air traffic control, the aircraft re-established comms and landed safely at Prestwick."

If comms re-established, then why not continue to destination?

JanetFlight
19th Apr 2013, 01:02
If comms re-established, then why not continue to destination?

Who would pay the Typhoon fuel bills then..?:O

golfyankeesierra
19th Apr 2013, 02:36
Prestwick - Birmingham? That's a bit out of the way.
Memories of the Northwest A320 that overflew its destination. Hope not....

The Fat Controller
19th Apr 2013, 06:54
I think all the Typhoon pilots will have been pretty busy since Monday 15th April.

Read the UK NOTAMS regarding military exercises!

Janet, if you are UK tax payer, then the answer is "you" along with millions of others.

Geezers of Nazareth
19th Apr 2013, 14:39
There was also a 'live' TU95 QRA earlier this week ... I guess that with 'Joint Warrior' talking place, maybe the Russians were a bit miffed at their lack of invite, and came along on the off-chance ... ;)

206Fan
19th Apr 2013, 15:23
Incident: SAS CRJ9 near Newcastle on Apr 18th 2013, loss comm intercepted by fighter aircraft.


By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Apr 19th 2013 14:18Z, last updated Friday, Apr 19th 2013 14:19Z

A SAS Scandinavian Airlines Canadair CRJ-900, registration OY-KFH performing flight SK-2533 from Copenhagen (Denmark) to Birmingham,EN (UK) with 72 people on board, was enroute over the North Sea about to report on Scottish Center, when radio communication was lost. After the aircraft made an unforeseen turn near Newcastle, two Typhoon fighters were launched to intercept the Canadair. After the fighters reached the CRJ, radio communication was restored and the CRJ-900 diverted to Glasgow Prestwick,SC (UK) for a safe landing at Prestwick escorted by the fighter aircraft. The aircraft was instructed to stop on runway 21 until declared safe.

A listener on frequency reported hearing the SAS crew complaining "we missed a frequency and someone pushed the big red button, what do we do now?"Incident: SAS CRJ9 near Newcastle on Apr 18th 2013, loss comm intercepted by fighter aircraft (http://avherald.com/h?article=46100da7&opt=0)

Skipness One Echo
19th Apr 2013, 16:04
So they re-contacted ATC and were denied permission to land at their nearby destination airflield and escorted cross country to a designated airfield for hi-jacking and terrorism related handling?

BOAC
19th Apr 2013, 17:27
A listener on frequency reported hearing the SAS crew complaining "we missed a frequency and someone pushed the big red button, what do we do now?" - dare we suggest MONITOR 121.5?

DLT1939
19th Apr 2013, 19:53
- dare we suggest MONITOR 121.5?

If you love listening to practice PAN's!!

BOAC
19th Apr 2013, 21:34
I think I would prefer that to being escorted to Prestwick by a Tiffy, no?

Flathadder
20th Apr 2013, 06:47
I have missed calls from ATC due to chatter on guard.

BOAC
20th Apr 2013, 07:48
There are more issues here than the Pavlov's dog reactions in previous posts.

Crews should be 'on the ball' and aware that 'comms' are not normal eg other a/c are getting vectors to places outside your area/ground TX is getting weak/you haven't been called when you expected a freq change - all these require an awareness which I think fades in the glass cockpit environment. Then, any of these 'triggers' calls for a monitor of 121.5. - not to listen ALL the time regardless, as we know that is painful, but 121.5 is where you will be called if you are 'lost'. They also call for the old chart to be looked at for a suitable frequency - "WHAT! - I never need to do that - I've got LNAV". It's that old 'airmanship' thing again. Sorry.

I suspect 121.5 would have been busy for many minutes calling SAS. At least they probably selected it when the Tiffy arrived alongside.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
20th Apr 2013, 09:37
... and if you can't make contact on the new frequency, go back to the previous one.

BOAC
20th Apr 2013, 09:48
What is more common, HD, is a 'missed' handover so there is no 'previous' to return to. Hence the need for a chart.

KBPsen
20th Apr 2013, 09:52
Loss of comm has happened ever since the first radio was installed in an aircraft. And as the used-to-be's are so fund of letting us know at every opportunity, back then pilots where so much better than the current crop. Or perhaps it was a couple of 60 year old were one had fallen asleep and the other had a flat battery in the hearing aid.

BOAC
20th Apr 2013, 14:47
KBP - if by chance you are in touch with any of the younger pilots (<60), could you ask them how they propose to handle the situation?

mcdhu
20th Apr 2013, 16:12
It occurs to me that well before the days of "follow the green line", one had to make position reports, then as radar coverage improved, they were omitted, but one still knew where the FIR/UIR boundaries were.

These days, I dread to think how many of us are actually aware of where the boundaries (ie the name of the waypoints) are and therefore when to expect a change of frequency/control.

CFPs/OFPs don't help much either - depends on the provider. Perhaps this is a contributory factor to this sort of incident.

mcdhu

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
20th Apr 2013, 16:23
<<What is more common, HD, is a 'missed' handover so there is no 'previous' to return to. Hence the need for a chart.>>

But where they were, they must have been talking to someone so why not go back to previous?

BOAC
20th Apr 2013, 16:41
HD - Because 'previous' is probably now out of range?

mcdhu - I did make a suggestion (via CHIRP) a long time ago to mark FIR boundaries on PLOGS.

Say Mach Number
21st Apr 2013, 14:42
In Ryanair world all our flight plans now have all FIR Boundary points underlined on the plog and elapsed time to each one.

Also SOP is to put said Boundary point in the fix page in the FMC so it has a green ring around it on ND.

Also if we get to said boundary and no said frequency change then we challenge ATC.

Ryanair worked out a while ago flying in formation with fast jets and picture in the Daily Mail is not good PR.

BOAC
21st Apr 2013, 14:56
Well done RY. Nice to see commonsense in action.

Al Murdoch
21st Apr 2013, 20:35
Ryanair worked out a while ago flying in formation with fast jets and picture in the Daily Mail is not good PR.

Because they are SO into good PR!
:}

Deep and fast
21st Apr 2013, 20:45
If you fly through places like Iran, then you will be very aware of comms boundries.

Tinribs
22nd Apr 2013, 14:37
As soon as any problem appears someone has a go at R air.

R have a lot of planes/routes/people, they don't have many incidents in proportion to their size. They must be doing something right

I don't work for them, never have, worked at the same field and don't like their methods. Flew with them once because the company booked it, never again, rather walk but the fact is they have an excellent safety record considering their size.

They don't fit the model some people try to circulate so get used to it.

SAS-A321
22nd Apr 2013, 16:39
There must be more to the story.
How long was the comm lost for? Seems like they were surprised. Refusing them to fly to final destination seems quite strange and an overeaction.
The North Sea has quite large sectors compared to flying through Maarstrict, so not anticipating a frequency change every 5-10 min could have made them too relaxed.

121.5 seems to have become flooded with unnecessary calls like ME carriers calling eachother, PAN PANs every where in the UK, when someone lost their orientation or practicing is as someone mentioned. (Get a flight info frequency for that) It often happens that you have to turn down the volume or you loose parts of a message due to unnecessary chatter.

I am not trying to make an excuse for the crew, as they should have been listening to 121.5, but there are many factors in this and maybe ATC forgot to hand them over. Has happend to me before, but 121.5 saved them from giving us an escort. :E

lederhosen
22nd Apr 2013, 17:09
Underlining the FIR boundaries on the OFP is an excellent idea and I will suggest it to our ops.

clicker
23rd Apr 2013, 13:28
I think the UK AIP is very unhelpful regarding comms for enroute ATC.

Take a look at the French and German AIP enroute pages 3.7 and they list the frequency for each ATC sector.

Now look at the UK AIP enroute page 2.1.1 and all they have is a long list of frequencies with no clue as to what they are for.

BOAC
23rd Apr 2013, 13:46
Pilots normally use charts which do 'list' freqs by sector, and do not carry the AIP in the aircraft.

clicker
23rd Apr 2013, 14:09
BOAC, its a while since I used airline charts on a regular basis but when I did I believe the issue was still there. France showed the sectors but the UK didnt.

I presume the charts take the information from the published AIPs and notams so if the information is not there in the first place its unlikely to be repeated in the charts.

I agree you cant lump the AIPs around but in this day and age didnt think it would be a problem having them available in databases given you can get them via the eurocontrol EAD basic website. I get a lot of my info from there now.

BOAC
23rd Apr 2013, 14:17
I think you'll find Jepp charts have sector freqs everywhere.

LN-KGL
23rd Apr 2013, 16:13
That Jeppesen contains the radio frequencies won't help SAS a bit; they are using EAG Navtech.

BOAC
23rd Apr 2013, 16:27
Well, if those charts do not have the sector freqs on them, better change to Jepp?At least follow others' examples and mark the FIR boundaries on the PLOG so you know when to expect a change.

Old King Coal
23rd Apr 2013, 17:18
In flydubai (and also in Emirates) we use LIDO charts (= Lufthansa by any other name) and our FlightPlans annotate FIR boundaries (though this latter feature is actually a real pain-in-the-derrière for delivery flights from Seattle, as those intermediate boundary points cause havoc with the circle-tick-cross checks of bearing & distance required of long-range sparse area / oceanic sectors)!... and yes, FIR boundaries plus an 80Nm range ring are commonly entered in the FIX page, as an aide memoir for making the call well in advance to the next FIR.

White Knight
23rd Apr 2013, 20:34
though this latter feature is actually a real pain-in-the-derrière for delivery flights from Seattle, as those intermediate boundary points cause havoc with the circle-tick-cross checks of bearing & distance required of long-range sparse area / oceanic sectors

Well, we at EK do this everyday! No big deal. Plotting beats reading the Gulf Snooze or Cabbage Times:cool::ok:

Ye Olde Pilot
28th Apr 2013, 20:57
SAS-A321

121.5 seems to have become flooded with unnecessary calls like ME carriers calling eachother, PAN PANs every where in the UK, when someone lost their orientation or practicing is as someone mentioned. (Get a flight info frequency for that)


Here we go...the Guard Police are creeping out of the woodwork again.

I'm not sure how new you are to flying in the UK SAS A321 but using 121.5 is part of the flying training in the British Isles. Practice pans are just that and 121.5 is the frequency.
It's important that pilots are not scared of using it when they have a problem.:ok:

If your Scandinavian cousins had been listening out they could have saved some red faces.

M609
28th Apr 2013, 22:37
EAG Navtech

For now....
The FMS update on the march Airrac (or, lack therof) did not go down well in SAS (Or in NAX, it is rumoured)

LN-KGL
28th Apr 2013, 22:56
But I think it's not that type of problem here M609; here it's plain and simple a handover gone wrong.

Ceannairceach
29th Apr 2013, 21:56
From our side of things once we'd pressed aforementioned big red button there was no way to un-press it.

All in all it was handled well as per procedure by all concerned, as these things always are.

ShotOne
14th May 2013, 09:32
I'm sure it was handled well, but that doesn't mean the procedures for a simple loss of contact with no other suspicious factors are necessarily proportionate. Or that post cold war budget justification doesn't weigh in the balance.

In particular it is hard to escape the impression that there is a punitive element in demanding a diversion after the bona fides of the aircraft has been established.

ohnutsiforgot
14th May 2013, 20:49
GOL 1907 had been intercepted...

ATC Watcher
14th May 2013, 22:10
From our side of things once we'd pressed aforementioned big red button there was no way to un-press it.
That is for me a real issue today in many places .
When we (ATC) go back to cancel the cavalry,(because contact has been re-established and obviously it was a frequency change problem ) some Military are replying its not your call anymore, and someone has to pay. For me this will defeat the security purpose in the long run , as controllers might be in future be reluctant to press the button ( or make that call) in time, and the real threat, if and when it comes, might be missed.
90% of radio failures are wrong frequency changes.
9,9% are "sloppiness" (turning volume down or set the wrong VHF box.)
Nothing really to justify continuing the cavalry and make people pay for these so called "mistakes" once contact has been re-established.
The one can never missed a 6 digits frequency can throw the first stone.

As Heathrow Director said, going back to previous as FAST as you can after noticing it is always the best answer.

Canadian Break
14th May 2013, 22:22
Not too sure you understand the repercussions once the button is pressed. Having worked there, and done that, I can promise you that you would not believe the number of no comms incidents in a 24 hour period. Clearly, there are other factors to consider, so just because you pressed the red button doesn't mean that you "unpressing it is the way forward. believe me, no-one initiates the system for fun.

ShotOne
16th May 2013, 12:18
Nobody has remotely suggested the button is ever pressed"for fun" but surely it is a valid question why a few minutes loss of contact should incur such a wholly inflexible response. It seems there is no option to cancel even after it has become clear there is no threat..even sometimes if the interception hasnt taken place. There is a clear impression from some other posts that "someone has to pay". In practice this means the airline, even if the loss of contact wasn't their fault. Are we talking budgets rather than safety?

Out Of Trim
16th May 2013, 13:52
After the aircraft made an unforeseen turn near Newcastle, two Typhoon fighters were launched to intercept the Canadair

Well, Apart from losing coms with ATC; it would appear the crew concerned also deviated from the Flight Planned route!

That would definitely arouse enough suspicion to make the authorities go through the full procedure. Expense doesn't come into question in these situations, plus it is good practice for the QRA crews! :ok:

E_S_P
16th May 2013, 15:50
As Canadian Break and a few others have said that once the decision to go to an alert status is confirmed, it has to be followed through to it's pre-arranged conclusion - even if all 'appears' to back to normal.

Who knows what is really happening at the other end of that mic, or what duress is being put on a person(s) on board to either do or say the right things...

If you have or have access to high value assets or are key holders, some domestic alarm monitoring services will still initiate an on site visit to confirm you don't have a gun held to your head - even after confirming the cancellation password if the sequence of alarm triggers indicate possible intruders. With an airliner ....

It makes sense to me.

ShotOne
17th May 2013, 08:59
By that reasoning the gun-to-head scenario could apply to ANY crew of ANY flight with or without a loss of contact. There is simply no logical basis for making this assumption based on a brief loss of contact.

Out of trim said "..good practice for QRA crews"....Yes, exactly! Perhaps getting closer to real reason?

ATC Watcher
17th May 2013, 09:18
ESP and others; You see too many James Bond movies.
The purpose of an interception of a loss of comm of an airliner , in Europe at least , is to VEFIFY , not to shoot it down.
My point is that once you have re-established comms and it is obviously a frequency change problem, and everything is as before :,guys on correct freqs, on correct track, why not call off the interception? What is an interception going to achieve more ?

Heathrow Harry
17th May 2013, 10:11
well it gives the airforce something to do

and it gets them into the news as "defending our country"

and most of the cost is getting the interceptor off the ground so he might as well use the time

and it flags up an error somewhere in the system that otherwise would be brushed over

DaveReidUK
17th May 2013, 13:02
Out of trim said "..good practice for QRA crews"....Yes, exactly! Perhaps getting closer to real reason? He also said

Apart from losing comms with ATC, it would appear the crew concerned also deviated from the Flight Planned routeThat sounds like ample justification for an intercept, and I would expect that the priority after that was the need to have a comprehensive debrief of the pilots concerned once on the ground, even if at the cost of a diversion.

ManaAdaSystem
17th May 2013, 13:03
If I'm not mistaken, there was a military exerecise going on at the time?
Those figherpilots were probably very happy to get a "real" situation to deal with.

Out Of Trim
17th May 2013, 13:20
The point was; not only was there loss of coms, they also were not on track, having made an unforeseen turn near Newcastle.

In this case the only way to verify all was still OK was to force the CRJ to land at an airfield of our choice. Once on the ground, the Police will verify by physically going on-board.

Some here appear a little naive after 9/11. These fighter aircraft are fully armed for a reason. The unfortunate and ultimate result could possibly lead to a shoot down if the aircraft had been hijacked and failed to comply with the interception.

Canadian Break
17th May 2013, 15:09
Without wishing to be at all disrespectful your post re the mission of QRA in Europe would suggest to me that you do not really understand the "big picture". In a similar vein, I would not want to give the idea that these "lost comms" are few and far between. In my experience, there are several per day, ranging from a couple of minutes to several hundred miles (sorry to mix my measurements here - but you get the picture). Clearly, no one is going to get too excited if the only issue is as aircraft out of comms for a few (very) minutes but there are a number of other factors - all of which contribute to the "big picture" - and most of which ATC will not be aware of.

ATC Watcher
18th May 2013, 07:06
Some here appear a little naive after 9/11. These fighter aircraft are fully armed for a reason. The unfortunate and ultimate result could possibly lead to a shoot down if the aircraft had been hijacked and failed to comply with the interception.
In Europe ? Allow me to :)

Canadian Break : if you mean the big picture at the level of a State strategy policies , indeed I am not in those , but I know enough to see where the "war or terrorism " is being used to justify the use of big expensive military toys that became totally obsolete since the Soviets are concentrating on making money . In times of ever shrinking defence budgets , but to be honest, if I was in the military shoes I would probably do the same .

Canadian Break
18th May 2013, 17:31
Without saying too much - there are about another 15 (at least) inputs that go into every scramble/don't scramble decision. Your loss of comms is only the very tip of the iceberg and may have no relevance whatsoever.

ShotOne
19th May 2013, 16:33
In turn, without pressing for detail into your decision making protocol, Canadian, I can reel off a list of tragedies which had man "inputs" all of which were applied to an initial false presumption of hostile intent; KAL 007 "ignored" over 100 warning shots which it probablly never saw then a planned flight level change was interpreted as an evasive action. USS Vincennes downed an innocent Iran Air flight because ( as well as a string of other Navy blunders)it "ignored" UHF radio calls which it could never have received, whole inputs which demonstrated its innocence, such as its increasing altitude were discarded.

I appreciate there are differences here but we certainly see the same presumption of hostility which is not removed even by complete resumption of comms and normal operations

Canadian Break
19th May 2013, 17:09
Not saying who is right or wrong here - simply trying to dispel what seems to be a gathering momentum that "we" get the Typhoons airborne on a whim and at the slightest excuse. This is simply not the case.

ManaAdaSystem
19th May 2013, 23:14
And yet, this was just a simple lost comms situation. Nothing else. And you say at least 15 levels saw it differently? Why bother to listen to the captain when he explains the situation?
This was just a good opportunity to let the fighters do some "real" training.

E_S_P
20th May 2013, 12:03
I was trying to say, (and perhaps it didn't come through in my last post well by using an analogy), that there is a sequence of events - not just losing comms failure which initiates this type of response, again as Canadian Break has stated.

Its nothing to do with James Bond, but is to do with what happens once the "button" is pressed. Once the decision to intercept is made, it will - as in this case, run to its pre-planned conclusion.

Canadian Break
20th May 2013, 13:03
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Arkroyal
21st May 2013, 13:52
Flying CPH to EDI in my days on the Fokker 100 with British Midland, it was quite common to lose comms near the FIR boundary.

I used to make sure I had the next freq before the problem could arise.

One wonders just how long some pilots will continue without the old 'sixpence - half a crown' feeling prompting a radio check.

Canadian Break
22nd May 2013, 18:01
I can tell you that my friend; worst case in my personal experience was from coasting out over France until starting the descent into Manchester! Took him a while to realise that he had an escort too. Maybe they were both asleep!?

ShotOne
23rd May 2013, 09:15
"maybe they were asleep...?" or maybe they were handed over to a wrong frequency and retained there, or not transferred at all or suffered a comms failure, but hey in the absence of evidence let's just assume whatever makes them look worst!

Canadian Break
23rd May 2013, 13:11
So, if they were handed the wrong freq what is the SOP - sit there fat, dumb and happy in some of the busiest airspace in the world? Neither were they listening on 121.5 - or their company freq - or any of the previous freqs they had used. So, you tell me what should have happened!

ShotOne
23rd May 2013, 15:30
I'm not saying they did everything right, Canadian, but your "asleep" comment is revealing of your attitude and also highlights that the airline and crew invariably carry the can regardless of who or what was at fault.

Perhaps you would explain how your "at least fifteen inputs" totted up in this instance since, on the face of it, there was no factor other than a loss of contact. Surely the fact that they had flown past London on planned route without deviation ought to have counted as fairly strong evidence of an innocent explanation?

Clearly you have taken this personally and feel you are being accused of pushing the button "for the hell of it". I assure you this isn't the case but I feel strongly that the decision making protocol needs examination and discussion, particularly since ours is copied elsewhere. How would you feel as a passenger on an Azerbajan airliner intercepted by, say, a Zimbabwean fighter pilot on a dark bumpy night? This presumption of hostility is likely to have lethal consequences somewhere before too long.

Canadian Break
23rd May 2013, 17:07
This is not really the Forum to discuss this any further. Suffice to say, the protocols are in place and I reckon that the system employed by the UK is about the most failsafe in the world; if not I wouldn't have had anything to do with it! Happy Landings. CB

JW411
23rd May 2013, 17:51
CB:

I admire your patience.

Sadly, when it comes to trying to have a reasonable discourse with some of the posters on pprune you are as likely to be as successful at trying to pick your nose whilst wearing boxing gloves.

Canadian Break
23rd May 2013, 18:26
Jolly decent of you old man. Clearly some people don't read what is in front of them, preferring instead to see what they think is written - perhaps based on their preconceptions! You can take a horse to water etc! Stay Safe.

B-U-S-S
23rd May 2013, 21:29
I still frequently hear SAS being called several times on the frequencies. Apparently they did not learn from this occurance. :rolleyes:

German ATC recently avoided pressing the huge red button, by calling the airline and asked them to send an ACARS message to a flight that lost communication.

I was once called on 121.5 only a few minutes after checking in on a frequency and getting "indentified". We never got a proper explanation, other than we were out of the other sector. We never got a frequency change from the sector we left.

I find it strange that in the UK you think you should use the emergency frequency for training calls. Imagine if that was practice all over Europe! :{

Canadian Break
24th May 2013, 12:53
Nowhere in this thread have I - or anyone else that I can see, ever suggested using 121.5 for training calls. it is however used as a means of contact of last resort, after all, and I do mean ALL, other means of contacting an aircraft that is not talking to any agency fails to respond.

BOAC
24th May 2013, 12:58
I find it strange that in the UK you think you should use the emergency frequency for training calls. Imagine if that was practice all over Europe! - you may find it even stranger that when I were intercepting wayward airliners many years back the mil distress freq of 243 was used for the same.

B-U-S-S
24th May 2013, 13:23
Check post #38.

ManaAdaSystem
24th May 2013, 13:30
Never heard of practice PAN? It only works in UK, and only on 121.5. It is one of the main reasons why 121.5 is often turned down when I fly in UK (and adjacent) airspace.

BOAC
24th May 2013, 13:37
B-U-S-S Have done - and????

The practice Pan thing has been done to death many times on this forum. There are very good reasons for its usage and no PP lasts more than a few minutes.

MAS - I think CB was merely responding to the preceding post?

eglnyt
24th May 2013, 13:54
It is one of the main reasons why 121.5 is often turned down when I fly in UK (and adjacent) airspace.


I would have thought that if you failed to establish contact with the next sector or it has suddenly gone rather quiet on what is normally a quite busy frequency it might be prudent to turn it up and put up with the possibility of being disturbed by practice pans for a little while.

ManaAdaSystem
24th May 2013, 14:08
Yes, but it depends on the airspace in question. the SAS flight was flying over the North Sea, and that area can be rather quiet.
All I do when the radio has gone quiet is request a radio check. Problem solved!

B-U-S-S
24th May 2013, 15:39
BOAC: It was for CB.

Nowhere in this thread have I - or anyone else that I can see, ever suggested using 121.5 for training calls.

Surely, it must have been done to death several times on this forum, cause apparently it is a nuisance to many pilots. :rolleyes:
Apparently it is also only in the UK they think it is necessary to occupy the emergency frequency for a few minutes.

Canadian Break
24th May 2013, 19:22
Suppose the PIA incidemt was an over-reaction too! anything to keep the hours up! Bah.

E_S_P
24th May 2013, 19:49
Suppose the PIA incidemt was an over-reaction too! anything to keep the hours up! Bah. :ok:

Its time this thread was given the old red button treatment - intercepted and (in this case) shot down :ugh:

ATC Watcher
27th May 2013, 20:16
ESP :
sorry for late response. Was away in the real world for a while. Unfortunately back in front of a laptop tonight..
Got your point about " once the decision is made" and understand it. Mine is that I find it a pity that in some Sates (and the UK seems to be one ) you cannot modify that decision once you get confirmation that the cause of the doubt that led to take that decision is no longer there.

Canadian Break :
quote : I reckon that the system employed by the UK is about the most failsafe in the world; if not I wouldn't have had anything to do with it!
I think I have met people like you in a former life. You see I was slightly involved in the aftermath of KAL007. We all have learned a lot after that and even the USA said they would apply the ICAO changes proposed after that. But then IR655 happened. Military will always be military.
I hope that the decision process to shoot down a civil airliner full of pax will take a bit longer today, and involve more civilians and politicians in the process, also in the UK.
End of my ramblings.

Canadian Break
28th May 2013, 19:49
If only you know how that decision was arrived at - and perhaps others such as myself who have contributed to this thread have also had similar experiences to yours - but the outcomes were different to KAL 007.

Lon More
28th May 2013, 20:45
Would it take much extra wok to incorporate UIR/FIR boundaries in the FD display, possibly accompanied by a warning chime as this is crossed? All it takes then is one call to ATC, "Do you want us to remain on this frequency?"

Personal opinion; once an aircraft is intercepted I feel it should then continue to the designated airport. Thee is gong to come time when it is a genuine incident and the person advising Ops Normal is in fact the hijacker.

Canadian Break
29th May 2013, 12:48
Good man - someone who clearly uses his grey cells to ask that immortal question..."what if?" One of many reasons for "pushing on" once the decision to go has been made.

missterrible
30th May 2013, 13:07
In the recent past, every Saturday (or Sunday if we are busy on Saturday), I began spending time with my two small children, running drills to practice emergency calls. They would sit playing and I would then shout some emergency scenario at them, for example 'the neighbour's house is on fire'. The children would then agree which one would call the emergency services. He/she would dial 999/911/112 and ask 'say practice! fire practice fire! practice fire!'. They would then give the name and address and any other info they deemed useful.

To test the children's understanding of what was an emergency and what wasn't, the nature of the scenario would change. But each time they would play out the scenario right to the end before any analysis and feedback was offered. The advantage of this approach is that the emergency services can offer immediate feedback.

So, for example, when I shouted that Granny's teeth had fallen down the toilet and the children decided to dial 999/911/112, I sat proudly and watched them learn from an angry operator that this was not, in fact, a real emergency.

With the advent of twitter I was able to dream up more radical scenarios, such as the recent train derailment & explosion in the states, which thankfully the children correctly identified as an emergency and called 999/911/112. It wasn't their fault the foreign operator didn't recognise the word 'practice' and thus we should have a good case in court against the railway operator's claim for damages.

Equally it is hardly our fault that one of our training calls cased a delay in processing another emergency call. They should have more lines in use and I am sure the Judge will understand that sometimes the kids forget the word 'practice'.

This week we had even better training when the authorities called to our home to query our regular 'practice' calls. I decided that in the event of a war or other emergency it would be advantageous to have my middle-eastern born spouse practice talking the blame for some elaborate hoax. This would give them useful experience of incarceration in a western country and, importantly, the family good experience of a more spartan existence.

This practice call on the emergency number is a truly wonderful facility and everyone should do it every day. No one seems to mind and of course there is simply no other possible way to teach children how to do a 999/911/112 call.

* NB the above may not be completely true and may lean toward satire.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
30th May 2013, 13:17
missterrible. I hope it isn't true or maybe where you are the emergency operators have little to do. Can you even begin to imagine the carnage if everyone in the UK dialled 999 for practice? The emergency services here are grossly overloaded as it it and you would not believe the calls which are made to 999..

flydive1
30th May 2013, 13:48
HD, did you read the N.B.?:rolleyes:

missterrible:ok:

Out Of Trim
30th May 2013, 14:09
missterrible

I guess you are a member of the Guard Police; and you are alluding to the use of Practice Pans in UK airspace by trainee pilots?

Not really the topic of this thread and has been done to death!

Ye Olde Pilot
2nd Jun 2013, 21:13
But he makes a valid point.

If mum and dad were unconscious in the lounge the kids would know it might be carbon monoxide poisoning and phone the medics.

Over decades many pilots have died because they got in to difficulty and were too embarrassed to make a pan or mayday call.

The 'guard police' are a bunch of numptys:(

ShotOne
10th Jun 2013, 12:53
Valid point, yes... Why not start a thread about it!

I've taken the highly unusual step, for pprune, of actually finding some facts on the subject. With respect to what was for me the major issue, that once a fighter was launched it continued to intercept and force a diversion even if comms were restored. I have discovered that, contrary to some of the headmasterial posts here, that isn't the case and in at least one instance a Typhoon held over Northolt without intercepting after a Glasgow bound B757 which had lost contact at the French FIR had come back on air. Perhaps those who posted to the contrary weren't aware of this or felt, incorrectly, the info was classified?

I also discovered that the Frogs carry out very many more interceptions than the UK...suggesting that the "self justification" issue is very much alive but in pointing the finger at the UK authorities we've got the wrong target.

Faire d'income
10th Jun 2013, 16:57
Now ShotOne, having got that far in your research, why didn't you ask why there are so many interceptions in French airspace?

Here are some suggestions:

ATC don't read full frequencies (e.g. 132.57 instead of 132.570 or 132.575 etc.) and often fail to check the readback to compound this;
Pilots who think it is funny to block 121.5 with idiotic broadcasts of animals and music thus, as in the UK, many pilots turn down/off 121.5 due to the distraction;

BOAC
10th Jun 2013, 17:16
The main reason USED to be that they needed passive targets for their interceptor force and often 'intercepted' innocent civil aircraft in full radio contact with ATC.

hec7or
10th Jun 2013, 18:11
ATC don't read full frequencies (e.g. 132.57 instead of 132.570 or 132.575 etc.) and often fail to check the readback to compound this;
Pilots who think it is funny to block 121.5 with idiotic broadcasts of animals and music thus, as in the UK, many pilots turn down/off 121.5 due to the distraction;

That would be 121.500 then.

(transmitted as 0ne Two One Decimal Five)