Airliner escorted by RAF into Manchester Airport

[CISTRS]

BBC reporting this live at the moment.

[CISTRS]

Apparently Qatar airlines.
Possible device on board - still being reported live.

[ShotOne]

"Possible device on board" Qatar airways A330 from Doha, Typhoon escort. Thank goodness...one wouldn't want to be blown to pieces without a military escort

[judge11]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question.

[coopervane]

QTR 43 from Doha. A330-300
A7-AEH. Appears on the ground surrounded by Police etc

[Just a spotter]

Some non-sensational reporting of the incident with a video of the Typhoon in proximity.

Plane 'with possible device on board' escorted into Manchester Airport | BreakingNews.ie (http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/plane-with-possible-device-on-board-escorted-into-manchester-airport-638294.html)

[andybsei]

Parked on a remote? They can't be that worried about anything catastrophic taking place on the ground then?
I'd assumed they'd leave it on the turning circle at the end of 24L if they were?

Lots of footage on Sky News taken from inside the aircraft with a Typhoon alongside, makes me think they're not worried about passengers remotely doing anything using phones/tablets etc?

Storm in a teacup? Good QRA response practice.

[AreOut]

those RAF Typhoons are really busy these days...

[Dave's brother]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question.
Presumably trying to watch for any 9/11-style disturbance on board?

[Curious Pax]

Lots of footage on Sky News taken from inside the aircraft with a Typhoon alongside, makes me think they're not worried about passengers remotely doing anything using phones/tablets etc?

Storm in a teacup? Good QRA response practice.

I knew there was a reason for the recent directive to keep your phone charged!!

News report says one passenger taken off before the rest disembarked, so sounds like they know who drew someone's attention to the alleged device (for want of a better way of putting it!).

[Too Few Stripes]

Yet again when a aircraft lands in the UK with a suspected device in board the first thing the authorities do is keep everyone on the aircraft! Really! Wtf! They wouldn't do that with a bomb scare in a building yet somehow the muppets in charge think it's perfectly acceptable on an aircraft. Rant over.

[butterfly68]

skynews is reporting that it seems to be a hoax threat..: one man arrested

[Brain Potter]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question.

At the very least getting "eyes on" in order provide eyewitness testimony to any subsequent events.

After MH370 (never-mind 9/11) do you really imagine that any credible government presented with an airliner that may be subject to a serious level of unlawful interference would not order it to be intercepted and observed?

[newjourno]

Greater Manchester Police on Twitter: A man who was onboard the plane at @manairport has been arrested on suspicion of making a hoax bomb threat.

[6000PIC]

Assuming innocence prior to guilt , if this individual is mentally deficient enough to hand cabin crew a note referring to a bomb threat , then a lengthy jail term and a lifetime ban on air travel is a must. No tolerance for this stupidity.

[andyhargreaves]

Listening to BBC coverage. One the pax is being interviewed, saying they were not told what was going on.

Sorry, am I being stupid, but if I'm ever in this situation, please Mr or Mrs Flight Crew and Cabin Crew, do feel free to ignore me while you prepare the plane and attempt to save our lives. As long as you let me know if/when I need to do something, then my ignorance of the situation can be your lowest priority.

Pffft.

[Rob Bamber]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question. OK let's play a bit of hypothetical chess. Imagine the fellow says he has a bomb and he will detonate it if the pilot does not do what he says. The pilot is forced to say "that plane will shoot us down if I do what you say."

Stalemate. The pilot is removed from the decision-making process, which is a good thing because his/her role then becomes to concentrate on flying the plane safely for as long as he/she can. Then, the three possible outcomes are: bomb destroys a/c, hijacker gives up, or negotiations with British authorities begin.

[beatrix]

A lot seems to be being made of the tweeting of images and footage taken from inside the aircraft - and there was me thinking mobile transmitting devices were supposed to be switched off between take-off and landing?:=

[ExRR]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question.

I would assume that the fighter pilot can visually check that the cabin is secure and the crew are indeed in charge of the flight.

I would also assume that if the aircraft varied from instructions given to it and for instance decided to crash dive into some area or other such as a nuclear power station then it might be shot down.

What I'm not clear on is how well the fighter plane would withstand a major explosion on the plane though I guess the amount of explosive carried by an individual would have limited spread.

I would like to see an answer as to why passengers on a plane with a suspected explosive device are not immediately evacuated.

[Sunnyjohn]

I would assume that the fighter pilot can visually check that the cabin is secure and the crew are indeed in charge of the flight.

I would also assume that if the aircraft varied from instructions given to it and for instance decided to crash dive into some area or other such as a nuclear power station then it might be shot down. It may be a little naive of me, but I am assuming that there is an understood protocol in these cases. Unfortunately, as it is, I assume, a military protocol, we won't be party to it, but it would be comforting (or not!) to know what the sequence of actions actually are.

[bartonflyer]

It may be a little naive of me, but I am assuming that there is an understood protocol in these cases. Unfortunately, as it is, I assume, a military protocol, we won't be party to it, but it would be comforting (or not!) to know what the sequence of actions actually are.

For interception of non military aircraft it is a civilian procedure

CAA Safety Sense -Interception Procedures (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=1165)

[EGCA]

Post 9/11, shooting down a passenger aircraft that appeared to be under control of other than the crew and was heading for a densly populated UK location, such as for instance Canary Wharf, would be seen as the least worst option. 300 lives lost vs thousands.
Sadly we live in an age where those sort of decisions need to be considered.

[JG1]

That fighter might provide options but not for you. You just became a pawn in a game and that fighter is there to blow you out of the sky if it becomes necessary. You're videoing your executioner.

In 2004 or so we inadvertently drifted into a prohibited area and were engaged by two fighters which came at us head on numbingly fast from 14 miles and only broke away at the last second leaving us in the midst of a turning 'descend, increase climb, descend NOW' type RA, both passed at a large rate of knots each side of us not very far away at all. No prior warning. We got the message. Not quite ICAO but rather effective.

When they come at you like that you appreciate these machine's true purpose for the first time. They arent just pretty toys that grace airshows, they are massively terrifying, the absolute personification of sudden aggression, racing dogs of war which are on you before you can even react.

[Laarbruch72]

I'm truly amazed that anyone who has lived through the last decade and a half has to ask what the value of a fighter escort on a threatened airliner is. How quickly we forget.

[Fox Four]

I couldn't tell from the photographs, but I'm presuming this particular Tiffie was armed? It's a QRA jet allegedly so should have been.

[ShotOne]

Well people ARE asking, Laarbruch. The only reason the authorities knew there was a suspect device is because the Captain called them and told them so. That conversation would hardly have taken place had it been a hijack. Without wishing to seem ungrateful I'm struggling to see what the Typhoon contributed, and I'd particularly question the need to maintain close formation down the approach.

[mickjoebill]

I would assume that the fighter pilot can visually check that the cabin is secure and the crew are indeed in charge of the flight.


If there isn't a protocol where cabin crew can make a covert visual signal of some kind, to an escort, there should be….. like stuffing a safety card between windows and blind or at night cracking a light stick.

[Dairyground]

If there was any real prospect for trouble, why was this flight allowed to continue into Manchester, rather than diverting, as seems usual in such circumstances, into Stanstead?

Given that the escort might have ultimately had to destroy the escortee, why wsa it allowed to approach over densely populated Tameside and Stockport, with the triggering event possibly being a turn towards central Manchester, rather than over the relatively unpopulated northern Cheshire? I don't recall there being much wind around these parts today.

[fireflybob]

The only reason the authorities knew there was a suspect device is because the Captain called them and told them so

Police said the pilot had been handed a note about a possible device on board (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28662561) - "suspect" not the same as "possible"

If there was any real prospect for trouble, why was this flight allowed to continue into Manchester, rather than diverting, as seems usual in such circumstances, into Stanstead?


There is a robust system in place for assessing the individual threat level.

PS correct spelling is "Stansted"

[Flap 5]

.........and the Typhoon is achieving what? Genuine question.

Something that has been missed so far is that if there were an explosion in one of the holds the Typhoon would be there to inform the pilot what, if any, damage had been sustained to the aircraft. An A330 is a big aircraft and a single bomb would have to be quite big to bring it down. The Typhoon pilot could inspect the aircraft after any explosion and tell the pilot what external damage can be seen and whether the flaps, gear, etc. had been damaged. From this the pilot could determine the best action to take to get the aircraft down safely.

[CISTRS]

It has just been reported that the arrested passenger has been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

[MATELO]

Given that the escort might have ultimately had to destroy the escortee, why wsa it allowed to approach over densely populated Tameside and Stockport, with the triggering event possibly being a turn towards central Manchester, rather than over the relatively unpopulated northern Cheshire? I don't recall there being much wind around these parts today.

It was put in a holding pattern over the peak district whilst ascertaining the validity of the threat on board.

[TopCat160]

It was put in a holding pattern over the peak district whilst ascertaining the validity of the threat on board.So, once it was ascertained that there was no credible threat, why did the Typhoon then have to escort the airliner all the way to Manchester?

It would surely not have been permitted to proceed had there been a credible threat of any kind whatsover, so the cynical inference is that the purpose of the continued escort was to achieve lots of publicity.

Not saying publicity is bad - if it shows the other bad guys that the interception capability is there, all good.

[Pontius Navigator]

Passengers were complaining that they only found out what was happening through tweets and calls from people on the ground.

What would have been achieved if they had been told? OK, they found out when they shouldn't but that is life.

"This is your captain speaking, we have been told there is a bomb on board, but don't worry.

If it explodes there is nothing to worry about as you won't feel a thing. We are attempting to land at our destination as normal. Don't panic, sit back, and watch the pretty aeroplane flying along side."

Yeah right.

Seriously though, how did the passengers react? Press reports are fairly restrained in what they said. Did many passengers not find out? Did those who did just accept it?

[BOAC]

Not saying publicity is bad - if it shows the other bad guys that the interception capability is there, all good. - so you are saying it was good, then.

[golfbananajam]

@mickjoebill

cracking a light stick at night = covert?

lmao

:=:=:ugh::ugh:

[TopCat160]

Not saying publicity is bad - if it shows the other bad guys that the interception capability is there, all good.
- so you are saying it was good, then.

Well I'm not sure. If it's a transparent publicity stunt, you could argue that it will erode, rather than enhance the deterrent effect.

Military shows of strength have always been historically used to imply both ability and willingness to use said strength, but these days the link to the latter isn't so clear.

I know I'm contradicting my earlier 'all good' - I don't think it's that obvious either way.

[fireflybob]

Personally if I was a passenger and saw one of our Eurofighters on the wingtip I would feel quite reassured.

[Laarbruch72]

Well people ARE asking, Laarbruch. The only reason the authorities knew there was a suspect device is because the Captain called them and told them so. That conversation would hardly have taken place had it been a hijack. Without wishing to seem ungrateful I'm struggling to see what the Typhoon contributed, and I'd particularly question the need to maintain close formation down the approach.

There are procedures in place for all scenarios and they do overlap, the key point is that initial reports can often be very different from the eventuality. A note to the flight deck may be the early stage of an attempted takeover of the flight deck through duress. The Typhoon is there in case the "suspect device" scenario turns out to be something else entirely. It takes seconds for these things to develop and Coningsby is a fair way from MAN.

On the need to maintain close formation down the approach, you'd have to ask a QRA pilot, I'm not sure. Maybe it's part of procedure, or maybe the pilot decided on the spur of the moment to carry on with the escort as a kind of visual deterrent.

[scudpilot]

Quick question.
I know that there was a situation ( a couple of years back now) where people around the Bath area were complaining because they lost some panes of glass when a Typhoon QRA intercepted a helicopter, and had to go supersonic to get there.
Just wondered, I believe that supersonic is usually prohibited over land, are QRA allowed to ignore this rule, or whether it would have to be authorized "per job" as it were?

[TEEEJ]

Scudpilot wrote

Just wondered, I believe that supersonic is usually prohibited over land, just wondered if QRA were allowed to ignore this rule, or whether it would have to be authorized "per job" as it were.

From the 2012 Gazelle incident.

Authorisation was given for one of the Typhoons to transit at supersonic speed over land, which resulted in the sonic boom heard by the public.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-typhoons-scrambled-over-uk

[Pontius Navigator]

A Typhoon on your wing tip could be for many reasons - bit fell off, oil leak, radios u/s, flight plan problem etc. Tell the truth or flannel?

Once in. French airspace they sent 4 fighters up to us. The only answer was "Yes Sir, whatever you say Sir."

[Lone_Ranger]

I'd particularly question the need to maintain close formation down the approach

Looks cool innit

[BOAC]

....and, of course, it wasn't 'close formation' was it? No intelligent pilot would do that.

[OxfordGold]

I think putting the Typhoon so close to the airliner could cause more problems than resolving them.

[fudpucker]

Such as? Please do enlighten us.

[Encorebaby]

Sending typhoons to intercept passenger airliners is as pointless and fanciful as putting surface to air missile launchers on the roof tops of London flats during the Olympics. ..No western government in their right mind could ever sanction blasting hundreds of innocent passengers all over the English countryside! It's a ridiculous idea to think that democracy would allow that to happen, MH17 was apparently hit by mistake, just imagine the international reaction to targeted strike authorised by a civilised country against an aircraft registered in a different state! Wow the fall out would be too awful to imagine from every conceivable angle. Imagine the scenario...Captain deems the threat credible according to his/her Ops Manual Part A definition of credible and calls ATC who call in the typhoon. Typhoon pilot then instructs airline Captain to divert aircraft over a designated area for destruction!! Sorry chaps as fanciful as this threat might be i'm afraid that Mr typhoon is about as useful in this situation as doing nothing. If it were required for shooting up airliners it would position behind and above his target out of sight of passengers and crew. Remember Helios at Athens, that was intercepted and even though no one was flying it they left it alone to its own fate.

[IcePack]

encorebaby

The fallout might be horrendous but the potential is worse.

[500N]

Encore

You'll be horrified to learn that here in Aus at one of the CGOGM or G20 meetings, the authority to fire was delegated to the two senior RAAF officers in charge of airspace, security covering that event. It raised a few eyebrows in the media.

[AreOut]

"Remember Helios at Athens, that was intercepted and even though no one was flying it they left it alone to its own fate."

because it wasn't pointed towards downtown, if a suicidal hijacker wanted to crash the plane somewhere in Central London you could be sure it would be shot down and noone would accuse british authorities because the people would be dead anyway, damage limitation simply

[Livesinafield]

The reason for the typhoon on your wingtip is surely obvious?

anything even slightly suspect happens after this point your getting shot down

No western government in their right mind could ever sanction blasting hundreds of innocent passengers all over the English countryside!

I wouldn't be so sure....the moment they suspect your heading towards a populated area without ATC comms...guess what there blasting you out the sky 100% there is no way in this day and age a western government will allow a hijacked plane anywhere near a built up area

[visibility3miles]

ExRR
I would like to see an answer as to why passengers on a plane with a suspected explosive device are not immediately evacuated.

A few reasons come to mind:

1) You are safer on the ground than in the air.

No crash landing means lower risk.

It takes a much bigger bomb to blow up an entire plane on the ground than to knock a plane out of the sky or disable it.

An explosion can injure or kill people, but depending on where it is located, the damage could be minor. It might not set off the fuel, so most people would be okay. A bomb that can fit in your shoe isn't very big.

2) They don't want the bad guys to get away.

Emergency, unplanned evacuation at an airfield could mean chaos. The perps could escape or drop vital evidence when people run away from the plane.

If passengers stay on the plane, any witness who saw suspicious activity is right there, on the plane, staring at the people in question.

3) It's easier to understand and recreate the scene, assuming nothing bad happens.

4) It reduces panic and potential injuries from an emergency evacuation, especially if it a hoax or nothing happens.


If this was a hoax, it was one very expensive joke. They should be held liable for the costs. Maybe they'll learn something.

[scudpilot]

Not sure that I agree that sending up a Typhoon would have had no effect.
How would 9/11 have panned out if the Americans had ability to shoot down aircraft? The Pentagon (At least) would have ended differently.

[BOAC]

it definately wasn`t close formation - colloquially known as "Same way same day" or more accurately 'shadowing'. i.e.in a position to observe as required but not close enough to be 'in danger'.

[nicolai]

Personally if I was a passenger and saw one of our Eurofighters on the wingtip I would feel quite reassured.

I can't imagine I would feel reassured at all. I would feel threatened, because it is a threat. The QRA aircraft are there to carry weapons and to point them at the suspect aircraft. They can either threaten to shoot, or shoot - at me in the suspect aircraft. So they are either threatening me, or actually attacking me. Not reassuring at all. Having someone point guns at you and be prepared to use them is not reassuring.

The intent may be to point weapons and make threats or make an attack on whoever is in control of the aircraft, but it threatens and attacks me as well. I can't very well get off the aircraft or away from the people being threatened.

Maybe the QRA aircraft is there because the aircraft I am in has some problem that is not an attack (or threat of attack), takeover of control, etc. In which case "hello there!", but if one just showed up, I would be thinking mainly that the reason it is there is to shoot me down. If the reason was not to shoot me down but just to look and assist, the RAF could send up an unarmed aircraft instead.

The armed QRA aircraft are not there to protect the passengers in the aircraft. They're there to protect everyone else.

[AreOut]

"How would 9/11 have panned out if the Americans had ability to shoot down aircraft?"

coordination between civilian and military authorities was very bad(you have something on wikipedia), otherwise they would intercept and shoot down 1 or 2 planes

[BOAC]

nicolai - calm your fears. It is impossible to shoot down an aircraft from a 'formation' position (except directly line astern in which case you would not see the fighter). The time to worry is when you CANNOT see the fighter.

[ShotOne]

Why have so many latched onto the hijack scenario? If there had been the slightest hint, then I'd fully agree with the various points. But there wasn't. The worry is, were the powers-that-be using the same reasoning? If the only tool in your box is a missile armed interceptor, must every problem be a suspected hijack?

[TURIN]

Given that the escort might have ultimately had to destroy the escortee, why wsa it allowed to approach over densely populated Tameside and Stockport, with the triggering event possibly being a turn towards central Manchester, rather than over the relatively unpopulated northern Cheshire?

Cheshire's expensive. ;)

[jmmilner]

If there had been the slightest hint, then I'd fully agree with the various points.Never underestimate your enemy. The 9/11 hijackers didn't tip their hand about crashing into buildings even after they killed the crews. They assured the passengers they were returning to the airport (recorded on UA 93 when they keyed the ATC rather than the PA). It was only cell phone calls that informed those passengers that they were not following the prior hijack MO, prompting the passenger counter-attack.

Using one member of a hijack team, posing as a lone drunk or unstable individual, to frame the situation and flush out any unknown counter-measures would be a smart move before changing the plot. Prepare for the worse and hope for the best is simple prudence.

[mickjoebill]

@mickjoebill

cracking a light stick at night = covert?

lmao



Stuff it between the BLACKOUT blind and window.

[Laarbruch72]

If the only tool in your box is a missile armed interceptor, must every problem be a suspected hijack?


A missile armed interceptor isn't the only tool in the box of course, in this case it was a mere contingency for a non-UK carrier inbound to the UK with a very loosely defined threat situation on board. I'm not sure why people can't grasp this. We were an awfully, awfully long way from a shoot down of a civil airliner and the whole thing was relatively routine. The Typhoon was there just in case, what's wrong with that?

Jmmilner offers a good case as to why it's not that bad an idea to ensure that you don't routinely underestimate loosley defined threat situations.

[tubby linton]

Was only one Typhoon untilised or was there another shadowing the formation?

[nutnurse]

According to a Goat poster, two QRA aircraft took off from Coningsby but only one was seen close to the target, er, airliner.

[BOAC]

The other probably behind at missile range?

[nutnurse]

That's the implication. Not ideal, over a populated area, but if needs must it would I suppose be a question of which was the lesser evil...

There's a cruddiest place in the country thread on the Goat - Morecambe, Blackpool and Barrow have been mentioned, although each would have required a substantial overshoot.

[paully]

The second jet is there as back up to the first in case it goes `tech` or has to pull off to be `tankered `.No more no less....the rest are urban myths

[MATELO]

The second jet is there as back up to the first in case it goes `tech`

I thought he was there to take pretty pictures of the offending aircraft and the QRA.