US warns airliners flying over Gulf of 'misidentification'

[HowardB]

This topic seems to have been picked up in some of the quality media. The following is an extract from Al Jazeera:-

"US diplomats warned commercial airliners flying over the wider Gulf of the risk of being "misidentified" amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
The warning relayed by US diplomatic posts from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) underlined the risks the current tensions pose to a region crucial to global air travel."

As a SLF who regularly flies the length of the gulf this is a worrying development.

[Ripton]

As a SLF who regularly flies the length of the gulf this is a worrying development.

Indeed it would be but Iran has said there won't be a war. Nobody in the region is "big" enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/18/iran-war-us-risk-civilian-aircraft

[DaveReidUK]

Apparently this time around, it's not a reference to misidentification by the US.

[Ripton]

Apparently this time around, it's not a reference to misidentification by the US.

Well it wouldn't do to be shooting down the aircraft of your best clients and allies in the region.

[Takwis]

Apparently this time around, it's not a reference to misidentification by the US.

But the not-so-subtle threat is there, anyway. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655

[Sailvi767]

Commercial aircraft flights should not operate in combat or potential combat zones. Flights should remain well outside the maximum range of missle threats in those zones. Since airlines don’t want their operations disrupted its almost inevitable we will see another tragedy. Most people would not walk in front of loaded weapons with operators on edge yet we will willing fly under the same conditions.

[ironbutt57]

well HOPEFULLY, the crew monitor 121.5, where any "unidentified" aircraft will be challenged by the Navy, heard it on a daily basis, usually, it was one of their own helicopters..but it does add to the daily routine having to listen out for these calls...

[OldnGrounded]

But the not-so-subtle threat is there, anyway. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655

Indeed. It's reasonable to suspect this "warning" is motivated by something other than sincere and innocent concern for the international flying public.

[Rated De]

Iran Air 655

[ironbutt57]

Commercial aircraft flights should not operate in combat or potential combat zones. Flights should remain well outside the maximum range of missle threats in those zones. Since airlines don’t want their operations disrupted its almost inevitable we will see another tragedy. Most people would not walk in front of loaded weapons with operators on edge yet we will willing fly under the same conditions.

all fine and dandy, im sure if a war breaks out over the gulf, it will be closed, in the meantime, if you have FR 24 or similar air traffic app, have a gander at what goes on over the Gulf traffic wise...bear in mind this place is ALWAYS a "potential combat zone"

[the_stranger]

all fine and dandy, im sure if a war breaks out over the gulf, it will be closed, in the meantime, if you have FR 24 or similar air traffic app, have a gander at what goes on over the Gulf traffic wise...bear in mind this place is ALWAYS a "potential combat zone"
Besides this, let's not forget Africa where you can find conflict in most countries (in varying decree).

Nowadays if you want to go somewhere, it's almost impossible to avoid some sort of tensionzone.

[KRviator]

well HOPEFULLY, the crew monitor 121.5, where any "unidentified" aircraft will be challenged by the Navy, heard it on a daily basis, usually, it was one of their own helicopters..but it does add to the daily routine having to listen out for these calls...Wasn't one of the things to come out of the Iran Air shootdown that the US continually called the crew several times but used groundspeed in their "unknown aircraft" call, so they felt it was not directed at them, even if they were monitoring Guard?

[fox niner]

So if/when the Gulf is closed, and Pakistan is closed, then how...how...do I navigate to the far east?

[Rated De]

If the powers that be can apparently recognise everyone with facial algorithms, de-crypt encrypted messages, then let us pray that they can identify an airliner.

[3Greens]

Wasn't one of the things to come out of the Iran Air shootdown that the US continually called the crew several times but used groundspeed in their "unknown aircraft" call, so they felt it was not directed at them, even if they were monitoring Guard?
the main reason was the Americans were broadcasting on 243 (military guard HF)and not 121.5(civilian). Consequently, the Iranian civilian airliner wasn’t monitoring 253 and didn’t hear the calls.

[Herod]

253(military HF)

I think you mean 243 (military UHF)

[DaveReidUK]

The main reason was the Americans were broadcasting on 243 (military guard HF)and not 121.5(civilian). Consequently, the Iranian civilian airliner wasn’t monitoring 253 and didn’t hear the calls.


Well yes and no. Like most such events, it was a combination of circumstances.

The USS Vincennes made 10 attempts to contact IR655.

Seven of those attempts were on UHF (243.0 MHz), which the Iran Air couldn't receive as it didn't have UHF, and three were on VHF (121.5 MHz), which IR655 did receive but disregarded because it cited an unknown aircraft flying with a 50 kt speed difference (GS vs TAS) and failed to quote IR655's Mode A squawk, which would have unambiguously identified it.

[infrequentflyer789]

well HOPEFULLY, the crew monitor 121.5, where any "unidentified" aircraft will be challenged by the Navy, heard it on a daily basis, usually, it was one of their own helicopters..but it does add to the daily routine having to listen out for these calls...

Whilst also noting what else they said:

It also said aircraft could experience interference with navigation instruments and communications jamming “with little to no warning”.
No nav, no comms, lots of weaponry on hair trigger, what could possibly go wrong...

I suspect the idea is that now they've issued the warning if anything gets shot down it won't be their fault.

[SMT Member]

Let's remind ourselves, that historically only 2 nations have shot down commercial airliners in peace time. One of them has now issued a warning, it seems quite clear where that potential danger would come from. And it's not Iran.

[WHBM]

Seven of those attempts were on UHF (243.0 MHz), which the Iran Air couldn't receive as it didn't have UHF, and three were on VHF (121.5 MHz), which IR655 did receive but disregarded because it cited an unknown aircraft flying with a 50 kt speed difference (GS vs TAS) and failed to quote IR655's Mode A squawk, which would have unambiguously identified it.
Or, to paraphrase, they didn't know what they were doing. "Attempts" that are impossible to receive don't really count, do they ?

The crew also stated they had no way of knowing it was a civilian airliner, despite it being in a civilian ait corridor, Amber 59. Now in every US warship at the time the quartermaster carried the current Official Airline Guide (OAG), principally to arrange tickets for crew members. The flights from Bandar Abbas to Dubal were straightforwardly listed in there. So the information of the flight time and route of the aircraft was all there on board their ship. Just nobody had thought to look.

I hope nowadays someone on board has the web address for Flight Radar 24.

[Luc Lion]

There is no danger : the US has upgraded the Ticonderoga cruisers with 5 hand-held VHF radios per vessel.

[dook]

Herod,

243.0 is VHF. UHF starts at 300 mHz.

[DaveReidUK]

Now in every US warship at the time the quartermaster carried the current Official Airline Guide (OAG), principally to arrange tickets for crew members. The flights from Bandar Abbas to Dubal were straightforwardly listed in there. So the information of the flight time and route of the aircraft was all there on board their ship. Just nobody had thought to look.

It's worse than that.

The Vincennes did indeed have a flight schedule showing departures from Bandar Abbas, but the US crew failed to take into account the difference between Iranian local time and the time zone that the ship was using. This, combined with a 27 minute delay to IR655's departure, led to the incorrect conclusion that no commercial flight could be expected to be over the area at the time in question.

[wiggy]

Well I hope at this stage of the 21st century we are not still in part relying on schedule regularity, time tables and knowledge of time zone changes to differentiate between fried and foe..if we are then we are in for a world of hurt..

I suppose I could ask what has happened to all the fancy ESM and other kit and capabilities that have been around for decades .....but I know for good reasons we won't get answer...

[ManaAdaSystem]

Let's remind ourselves, that historically only 2 nations have shot down commercial airliners in peace time. One of them has now issued a warning, it seems quite clear where that potential danger would come from. And it's not Iran.

I see you point, but I was surprised to see how many airliners that have been shot down when I did a Google search.

243 Mhz is the UHF Guard frequency. Airlines don’t normally carry UHF equipment.

[Herod]

Dook. Must have changed since my day. The aircraft I flew all had UHF, and "guard" was 243.

[WHBM]

It's worse than that.

The Vincennes did indeed have a flight schedule showing departures from Bandar Abbas, but the US crew failed to take into account the difference between Iranian local time and the time zone that the ship was using. This, combined with a 27 minute delay to IR655's departure, led to the incorrect conclusion that no commercial flight could be expected to be over the area at the time in question.
Clearly they had no experience with scheduled flights not operating quite to time then. Maybe in the US that never happens ....

As I understand it the flight was spot on. The 27 minutes was the difference between gate closed (scheduled departure) and liftoff from the runway (ATC recorded time). Pretty normal.

[DaveReidUK]

As I understand it the flight was spot on. The 27 minutes was the difference between gate closed (scheduled departure) and liftoff from the runway (ATC recorded time). Pretty normal.

STD is pushback, not gate closed, and it's hard to envisage a 27 minute taxy at OIKB. In any event, it was reported that visa problems with a passenger caused the delayed departure.

It was the combination of the overall delay and the failure to account for the 30 minute time difference that led the Vincennes to conclude that IR655 would have been in the area an hour previously.

[dr dre]

Talk about schedules and on time departures doesn’t matter anymore, a quick look at flight radar reveals the Persian Gulf is chock full of air traffic 24hrs a day. A lot of it originating in Iranian airspace and heading south.

Anyone shooting off missiles from ships in the Gulf isn’t going to have the excuse of not knowing there’s plenty of airliners in that airspace.

[Andy_S]

It was just a matter of time until crazy Bolton and entourage got it his way and started a fight with Iran.

The last time I checked, about 2 minutes ago, nobody had started a fight with Iran.

..........Russian roulette comes to mind. And the Yankee just put one in the drum.

Can we please stop with the knee-jerk anti-American sentiment?

[Wally777]

As someone who has for many a year flown over Iran, I can only say they are some of the politest and helpful controllers I have had the pleasure to speak with.

[FrequentSLF]

The warning has been issued because all pilots flying over that region are "foreign" pilots, according to the US administration...

[Sultan Ismail]

I am aware of 3 aircraft shot down in peacetime, Korean 007, Iranian 655 and Malaysian 17.
An earlier poster has stated that just 2 aggresors were involved.
I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.

[OldnGrounded]

I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.

Maybe. That was the conclusion of an extremely-politicized investigation. Whoever may have been responsible for the shootdown itself, it certainly wasn't Russia that vectored the flight over the combat zone.

Frankly, I don't see how either warnings about these sorts of risks or procedures for avoiding them can be left in the hands of belligerents, who will inevitably have ulterior motives and, depressingly often, are willing to use innocents as pawns as they pursue their goals. The UN and the trans-national regulators need to step up.

[The AvgasDinosaur]

I am aware of 3 aircraft shot down in peacetime, Korean 007, Iranian 655 and Malaysian 17.
An earlier poster has stated that just 2 aggresors were involved.
I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.
I think I recall a Korean B.707 being intercepted by fighters and force landed some time in I think the early 70’s as well?
Be lucky
David

[Ripton]

Cathay Pacific's VR-HEU was shot down by the PRC in 1954. Also intercepted by fighters.

[paulross]

I am aware of 3 aircraft shot down in peacetime, Korean 007, Iranian 655 and Malaysian 17.
An earlier poster has stated that just 2 aggresors were involved.
I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.

Wikipedia disagrees, depending on your definition of 'peacetime', with 30 examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

Astonishingly the same aircraft was shot down in 1938 then again in 1940.

[KelvinD]

I think I recall a Korean B.707 being intercepted by fighters and force landed some time in I think the early 70’s as well?
I remember that. Wasn't it on a polar route and was forced to land on a frozen lake in the Russian Arctic?
Meanwhile, referring back to the Vincennes fiasco; All this talk of calling or not on VHF or UHF Emergency frequencies is all very well but what was wrong with the US Forces talking to the relevant FIR people and asking "Do you have anything inbound from Iran?"

[wiggy]

I think I recall a Korean B.707 being intercepted by fighters and force landed some time in I think the early 70’s as well?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902

[bill fly]

I remember that. Wasn't it on a polar route and was forced to land on a frozen lake in the Russian Arctic?
Meanwhile, referring back to the Vincennes fiasco; All this talk of calling or not on VHF or UHF Emergency frequencies is all very well but what was wrong with the US Forces talking to the relevant FIR people and asking "Do you have anything inbound from Iran?"

It was Korean air 902 - The Russians seem to have had it in for the Koreans

[BEagle]

Some years ago I was flying from Saudi to Cyprus on an international flight plan in Saudi controlled airspace. I had 2 UK fighters in the formation, as per the flight plan.

As we approached the Red Sea on our flight planned route, some Spam Navy person called up on 243 "This is Red Crown on Guard - aircraft approaching Wejh identify yourself!".

WTF?? No-one was at war....

Having told the Spam who we were, we were told "You are clear to proceed". To which I replied "We are indeed proceeding in accordance with our clearance from the FIR controller. Thank you for your interest, but we do NOT need any clearance from Americans sailing their boats in the Red Sea to fly on international airways. Goodbye!".

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right....:mad:??

No doubt the usual trolls will accuse me of being anti-American. Not true - only some of them!

[Sailvi767]

Besides this, let's not forget Africa where you can find conflict in most countries (in varying decree).

Nowadays if you want to go somewhere, it's almost impossible to avoid some sort of tensionzone.

There is very little surface to air missle threat in most of Africa once you are clear of the Mediterranean nations. What there is in other areas are almost all manpads that pose a very limited threat to airline traffic.

[Sailvi767]

all fine and dandy, im sure if a war breaks out over the gulf, it will be closed, in the meantime, if you have FR 24 or similar air traffic app, have a gander at what goes on over the Gulf traffic wise...bear in mind this place is ALWAYS a "potential combat zone"

Very true, it probably has the largest collection of high capability surface to air middle assets in full battery of any area on earth. Those assets are for the most part manned by 18 to 25 year olds. What could go wrong?

[Andy_S]

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right...

I don't think they regard it as a "right". Given the circumstances it sounds more like precautionary advice.

[ironbutt57]

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right....https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif??

would you rather they NOT warn you? in fact, they are NOT warning you, they are asking you to identify yourself since they apparently haven't, they do have the right to identify potential threats, and defend themselves if necessary...

[KRviator]

I don't think they regard it as a "right". Given the circumstances it sounds more like precautionary advice.I dunno...The U.S. seems to abrogate itself 'the right' to do an awful lot of questionable things around the world. For example, the law they have given themselves to prosecute someone who kills a US Citizen in a foreign country as though said person was killed walking down Hollywood Boulevade. Or invading Iraq the second time, or irradiating a good portion of the Pacific testing their nukes and a whooole lot of other events...

would you rather they NOT warn you? in fact, they are NOT warning you, they are asking you to identify yourself since they apparently haven't, they do have the right to identify potential threats, and defend themselves if necessary...Their "warning" because they haven't identified you is the scary part...With all the systems, sensors and technology reportedly available on their various ships, they still feel it necessary to warn civillian traffic "just in case" they experience "scenario fulfilment" again and blow another civillian airliner out of the sky. Not exactly something that gives a warm and fuzzy feeling, TBH...

[KelvinD]

That'll be the same US forces that regularly flew SR71 flights down the Red Sea, unannounced. When asked to identify themselves by the Jeddah FIR controllers there was never even an acknowledgement. It seems it works in one direction but not the other?
Incidentally, at the same time El Al began flying down the middle of the Red Sea, heading for Africa. When they came into Jeddah FIR, they would call Jeddah and it was quite funny watching the controllers there sitting stony faced, refusing to acknowledge the calls.

[dr dre]

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right....https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif??

would you rather they NOT warn you? in fact, they are NOT warning you, they are asking you to identify yourself since they apparently haven't, they do have the right to identify potential threats, and defend themselves if necessary...

Like defend themselves against an Iranian airliner flying in Iranian airspace whilst being positioned in Iranian waters?

Reverse the situation. An Iranian warship suddenly appears 15nm off the coast of New York, issues vague transmissions to a United jet flying overhead then shoots it down. What would the reaction of the US government be? A little more violent I presume than Iran’s response to their aircraft being shot down, pursuing a case in the International Court of Justice.

[GlueBall]

...Having told the Spam who we were, we were told "You are clear to proceed". To which I replied "We are indeed proceeding in accordance with our clearance from the FIR controller. Thank you for your interest, but we do NOT need any clearance from Americans sailing their boats in the Red Sea to fly on international airways. Goodbye!".

You're brave, dumb and conceited to think that your "rights" according to your civil ICAO IFR Clearance will prevail over instructions from a military controller.

[dr dre]

You're brave, dumb and conceited to think that your "rights" according to your civil ICAO IFR Clearance will prevail over instructions from a military controller.

If you would’ve read the story it wasn’t a military controller in charge of military controlled airspace.

It was a random US Navy ship in the sea far below and well away from their own country. Presumably operating there without any notification thinking they have the right to direct civil aircraft around contrary to their ATC clearances. They don’t.

[bulldog89]

be the same US forces who lost countless aviation lives and countless aircraft defending countries across an ocean....just sayin'

First things first: I don’t want to diminish those who had to fight a war just because they were ordered to.
This being said, it is also true that wars are started by men (politicians) and fought by boys (soldiers). WWII started in 1939, the US entered it only in 1941 after being directly attacked by Japan.
It wasn’t to “save Europe” but to limit Japanese expansion in the East (do not forget about US economical and political interests in the SE) and to avoid the conquest of the entire Europe by Germany and/or the USSR. You can see all of this had huge geopolitical and economical reasons behind it.
Even the Marshall Plan was a very well orchestrated political and economical move. It allowed the US to establish military bases in other countries (something which amazes me even today), to avoid a truly democratic process in Europe (left wing movements were on the rise), to limit Russia’s sphere of influence and to save its own economy (with a collapsed Europe the US had virtually nowhere to export its products).
So please, with the due respect for those who fought a war they didn’t ask for, stop saying it was just “goodwill”. It was a geopolitical decision and the US gained huge advantages from it.

Back OT, seen what happened with Iran Air (don’t forget the crew failed to distinguish an A300 with a fully functioning transponder climb profile from a fighter/bomber attack) profile, yes, I do think such messages are very worrying for pilots operating in that region.

[Ripton]

It wasn’t to “save Europe” but to limit Japanese expansion in the East (do not forget about US economical and political interests in the SE) and to avoid the conquest of the entire Europe by Germany and/or the USSR. You can see all of this had huge geopolitical and economical reasons behind it.


So much better put than my somewhat facetious post. It's perhaps also worth mentioning that it was also one of Roosevelt's aims to break up the British Empire.

[Gove N.T.]

I’m not sure what the point of raising who did what in WW2, the Gulf, Afghanistan blah blah. I think most of us hope that chest beating doesn’t lead to something in which a civilian airliner is involved as happened over Ukraine recently

[Herod]

The USA has many faults, but if there is going to be one superpower in the world, I'll take the US over the alternatives any day. Besides which, the average American is a nice guy (or gal) :ok:

[Rated De]

Everything is Bon.

That Israel is behind the scenes supplying the intelligence and motivation, makes Bolton’s actions even more questionable. It shows that it is John Bolton, not Iran, who poses the greatest threat to American national security today.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-america-ready-for-john-boltons-war-with-iran/

[The AvgasDinosaur]

If your average ‘spotter’ in his bedroom can identify passing traffic whether or not it’s on schedule. I would hope that the largest most sophisticated and expensive military force on planet earth can do likewise😱 It’s a damn big waste of a lot of $$$$ if they can’t!
Be lucky
David

[Rated De]

Like defend themselves against an Iranian airliner flying in Iranian airspace whilst being positioned in Iranian waters?

Reverse the situation. An Iranian warship suddenly appears 15nm off the coast of New York, issues vague transmissions to a United jet flying overhead then shoots it down. What would the reaction of the US government be? A little more violent I presume than Iran’s response to their aircraft being shot down, pursuing a case in the International Court of Justice.


This is precisely what Vladimir Putin remarked about the United States positioning ground forces 120 miles from their second biggest city. Asking the question, (paraphrasing) what would America do if we sailed our fleet 12 nautical miles off Martha's Vineyard?

[Airbubba]

Here is the actual NOTAM for any aviation types here:

KICZ A0015/19 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ADVISORY FOR OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND GULF OF OMAN

THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A BELOW SHOULD EXERCISE CAUTION WHEN OPERATING IN OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE REGION, WHICH PRESENT AN INCREASING INADVERTENT RISK TO U.S. CIVIL AVIATION OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MISCALCULATION OR MIS-IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY, AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE ABOVE-NAMED AREA MAY ENCOUNTER INADVERTENT GPS INTERFERENCE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS JAMMING, WHICH COULD OCCUR WITH LITTLE TO NO WARNING.

A. APPLICABILITY. THIS NOTAM APPLIES TO: ALL U.S. AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS; ALL PERSONS EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGES OF AN AIRMAN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FAA, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS OPERATING U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT FOR A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER; AND ALL OPERATORS OF AIRCRAFT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE OPERATOR OF SUCH AIRCRAFT IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER.

B. PLANNING. THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A PLANNING TO OPERATE IN THE ABOVENAMED AREA MUST REVIEW CURRENT SECURITY/THREAT INFORMATION AND NOTAMS; COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FAA REGULATIONS, OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS, MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATIONS, AND LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION, INCLUDING UPDATING B450.

C. OPERATIONS. EXERCISE CAUTION DURING FLIGHT OPERATIONS DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERRUPTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC DUE TO HEIGHTENED MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND INCREASED POLITICAL TENSIONS IN THE REGION. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED OVERWATER AIRSPACE ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE GULF OF OMAN INCLUDES PORTIONS OF THE TEHRAN FIR (OIIX), BAGHDAD FIR (ORBB), KUWAIT FIR (OKAC), JEDDAH FIR (OEJD), BAHRAIN FIR (OBBB), EMIRATES FIR (OMAE), AND MUSCAT FIR (OOMM). THOSE PERSONS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A MUST REPORT SAFETY AND/OR SECURITY INCIDENTS TO THE FAA AT +1 202-267-3333.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS PROVIDED AT: HTTPS://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIR_TRAFFIC/PUBLICATIONS/US_RESTRICTIONS/

SFC – UNL; 16 MAY 23:11 2019 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 16 MAY 23:17 2019

Asking the question, (paraphrasing) what would America do if we sailed our fleet 12 nautical miles off Martha's Vineyard?

You will be shocked to learn that Russian naval units have been prowling just outside the 12 mile limit of the continental U.S. for decades.

See: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-shadowing-russian-spy-ship/

I like the part about where they figured out some of the ship's movements and port calls from Facebook posts. :)

[capngrog]

[QUOTE=BEagle;10475107]Some years ago I was flying from Saudi to Cyprus on an international flight plan in Saudi controlled airspace. I had 2 UK fighters in the formation, as per the flight plan.

As we approached the Red Sea on our flight planned route, some Spam Navy person called up on 243 "This is Red Crown on Guard - aircraft approaching Wejh identify yourself!".

WTF?? No-one was at war....

Was your international flight from Saudi to Cyprus a movement of three military fighter aircraft, or were you a civilian aircraft being escorted by two UK fighter aircraft?

What is a "Spam Navy person"?

Cheers,
Grog

[DaveReidUK]

Was your international flight from Saudi to Cyprus a movement of three military fighter aircraft, or were you a civilian aircraft being escorted by two UK fighter aircraft?

From later in the post that you quoted from:

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right....:mad:??

[capngrog]

DaveReidUK;

I somehow missed the point of your above post. BEagle, to illustrate the historic hubris of the USA, was describing his formation flight from "Some years ago ... " during which he approached the Red Sea in the vicinity of "Wejh (Al Wajh). BEagle then expressed his ire at the "US warning' airliners flying over the Gulf ... " Assuming (a very dangerous thing to do) that "the Gulf" refers to the Persian Gulf, then it seems to me that BEagle is discussing two separate bodies of water and two different time frames. I would appreciate clarification/comment from BEagle him/herself.

Cheers,
Grog

[BEagle]

RTFP, mate! My point was simply that aircraft flying on international flight plans on international air routes do not have to seek confirmation from some USN boat floating about on seas thousands of miles away from America in order to continue with their lawful activity.

Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!

[Gipsy Queen]

RTFP, mate! My point was simply that aircraft flying on international flight plans on international air routes do not have to seek confirmation from some USN boat floating about on seas thousands of miles away from America in order to continue with their lawful activity.

Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!

Iran Air, Flight 655 comes to mind.

[GarageYears]

Herod,

243.0 is VHF. UHF starts at 300 mHz.

Technically correct, but everyone I know refers to 243 as "UHF guard".

I believe this is because most mil radios tune over the range 225.0Mhz to 399.995Mhz known as UHF-AM.

- GY

[Lonewolf_50]

If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere! Nice job on the Internet Tough Guy act, Beags. If a ship with no supporting aircraft has a high altitude aircraft to identify, and the visibility is not CAVU (as is commonn) and the date time group is back in the dark ages when you flew, you know good and damned well how a VID can't be done.
Your foaming at the mouth is pretty sad. It smacks of "I am a has been, so I'll rant and rave."

@Airbubba: thanks for the actual NOTAM. Somebody posting something factual amidst all of this noise is refreshing to see.

@Garage Years: yes, thanks for showing the internet pedant the door.

[Ancient Mariner]

You will be shocked to learn that Russian naval units have been prowling just outside the 12 mile limit of the continental U.S. for decades.

See: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/pentagon-shadowing-russian-spy-ship/

I like the part about where they figured out some of the ship's movements and port calls from Facebook posts. :)
I suppose you will be equally shocked to learn that us Norwegians, on behalf of our allies have been doing the same thing for at least as many decades.
The present spy ship is our fourth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Marjata
Per

[Bill Macgillivray]

Lonewolf 50,

Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!

No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!

Bill

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf 50,

Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!

No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!

Bill I am aware of how easily the fish heads get lost in the 3d environment we pilots take for granted. ;) I ran into something similar during a FLEETEX a few years after the Vincennes incident, other side of the world, where the op area chosen for the major exercise was near an intersection of "high altitude com air traffice lanes," if you don't mind me calling it that. A few of the people in the AAW world understood the issue, but some others did not. It all resulted in semi-inane goings on ... fish heads will be fish heads. (We call them black shoes in the USN, but I believe a few of our NATO partners refer to the same sea going sorts as fish heads, so I used the NATO slang).

The problem goes away if you have a CAP dedicated to clearing (this airspace volume) but when you don't ... or when the Admiral is paranoid about looking bad if the local Bear/Badger visitor gets too close with out an escort ... shennanigans aplenty.

[bill fly]

Reading some of this, one wonders who who’s “allies” are.
It was much more fun in the days of NATO and Warsaw Pact. Then it would have been clear who Red Crown was...

[esa-aardvark]

Getting old now, but having spent a bit of time flying here & there,
I'm inclined to agree with Beagle. ie just let the United States of America
comply with their international agreements, and please don't try to kill me.

[DaveReidUK]

Iran Air, Flight 655 comes to mind.

Yes, see posts #3, #9, #12, #15, #16, #17, #20, #23, #27, #28, etc

[capngrog]

Airbubba;

Thanks for showing us the actual NOTAM. The NOTAM was issued by the United States FAA and was directed to those for whom that agency has some responsibilities. The NOTAM was not meant for foreign entities, but was apparently shared through diplomatic channels just as a "heads up" notice. If nothing else, the NOTAM's reminder of possible GPS spoofing/jamming should be welcome by those transiting the region. I find it interesting how quickly an attempt to convey the gravity of heightened tensions in the M.E. has devolved into a USA bashing session.

Cheers,
Grog

[Alex Whittingham]

I agree with BEagle, those who live in grey boats are notorious for firing at anything they deem a threat. One is reminded of the Falklands conflict where HMS Bristol reported firing sea darts at a 'high flying Lear Jet' which was actually a British AAR formation heading for the Falklands, all squawking correctly... all notified.. but still they fired.

[OldnGrounded]

I find it interesting how quickly an attempt to convey the gravity of heightened tensions in the M.E. has devolved into a USA bashing session.


With respect, skepticism arising from memories of recent history doesn't seem, to me, to constitute "bashing." And it's also appropriate to recognize that our US government has been actively and openly acting to raise those regional tensions.

I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.

[Water pilot]

sWith respect, skepticism arising from memories of recent history doesn't seem, to me, to constitute "bashing." And it's also appropriate to recognize that our US government has been actively and openly acting to raise those regional tensions.

I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.

I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)

[capngrog]

I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.

That's fine. Continue on, operations as normal, nothing to see here, it's all routine. Is it your opinion that any and all advisories concerning the airspace of the Middle East should be ignored, especially if such advisories/warnings are from a "far-from-neutral party". I find such a reaction to a NOTAM to be most disturbing and unprofessional in nature.

Cheers,
Grog

[capngrog]

s

I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)

Regretfully, I must agree with your somewhat acerbic post. Don't get me started on that one.

Cheers,
Grog

[OldnGrounded]

Is it your opinion that any and all advisories concerning the airspace of the Middle East should be ignored, especially if such advisories/warnings are from a "far-from-neutral party".

Of course not and neither I nor any other posters have expressed such an opinion. I merely said that skepticism is reasonable in this matter and pointed out a couple of reasons why that might be so.

I expect that even the most skeptical aviators will be careful to make sure that any nervous or possibly-hostile inquiries in that part of the world are responded to with unmistakable ID information. Indeed, those who are most skeptical may be most aware of the importance of doing just that, remembering that an inquirer might be one of those far-from-neutral parties.

[OldnGrounded]

The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)

The McCain not only wasn't broadcasting, it wasn't monitoring. Of course, the folks on the bridge thought they had lost steering (they hadn't), so knowing the position of the tanker probably wouldn't have helped.

[West Coast]

I see Beagle hasn’t changed, always right on the spot with an anti yank post. He never fails, if he doesn’t have a story, one of the “lads” told him about a time...

In past years he loved to pass the CVN vs lighthouse story as gospel.

[Denflnt]

Some years ago I was flying from Saudi to Cyprus on an international flight plan in Saudi controlled airspace. I had 2 UK fighters in the formation, as per the flight plan.

As we approached the Red Sea on our flight planned route, some Spam Navy person called up on 243 "This is Red Crown on Guard - aircraft approaching Wejh identify yourself!".

WTF?? No-one was at war....

Having told the Spam who we were, we were told "You are clear to proceed". To which I replied "We are indeed proceeding in accordance with our clearance from the FIR controller. Thank you for your interest, but we do NOT need any clearance from Americans sailing their boats in the Red Sea to fly on international airways. Goodbye!".

US 'warning' airliners flying over the Gulf - what gives them that right....:mad:??

No doubt the usual trolls will accuse me of being anti-American. Not true - only some of them!

I have always been a lurker on here. Not an ATP, used to fly single engine Cessnas.

First of all, I wan't to apologize for my country for inconveniencing you. To ask you to ID yourself while being escorted by fighter aircraft in an area that, evidently, required you to have a fighter escort must have been a real boredom breaker for you. To their defense perhaps they may have either seen three aircraft on their radar or picked up transmissions from the fighters that alerted them to a potential threat. Thank God they communicated with you rather than doing the "American" thing of "shooting first and ask questions later." You know, we Americans are all cowboys by heart.

As to why we are there, many Americans ask the same question. We fought in two European wars in the last century, lost a lot of men and women in the process. Take a trip over to Normandy if you don't believe me. From what I understand they still like us "Yanks" in that region. Our integration into WWII kept most of Europe from having to speak German, despite the fact that we were actually attacked by Japan. Many Americans didn't want to involve ourselves in another European war, that is, until Pearl Harbor. My grandfather went to the theater we weren't trying to actively win, defending Europe was out priority and those who fought in the Pacific suffered from that policy. We helped a lot to win the battle in Europe and we stayed afterwards to ensure the peace. I'm not saying other countries didn't contribute, they did, but it wasn't "our war" at the time. We even spent billions after the war rebuilding Europe, so ya'll wouldn't do it again. We continued to stay so ya'll didn't have to learn Russian, with us picking up most of the tab. Now, few countries in NATO meet their, rather low defense spending expectations in assuming that cost of their own for the defense against the Russians. The Brits do, as well as those countries who fell on the wrong side of the iron curtain after the last "great war."

Now we ask our young people to go thousands of miles away to ensure Europe can have the oil they want so that you can fuel your plane to do your job. No oil, no Jet-A. No Jet-A, no job by the way. We've lost people in the process. Anyone remember the Stark? That captain lost his command and was court martialed for not defending his ship. The USN doesn't allow skippers to make mistakes. No other Navy has the ships to do what we do. You can thank the American taxpayer for that.

As an American, I don't want your thanks. But I sure as hell don't need the insults. We do the best we can do, more than any other country can say. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and my grandfather has his carrier sunk beneath him defending Australia, some thousands of miles away in the Battle of the Coral Sea. He wasn't defending America at the time and I can say that my mother and grandmother never knew if he was alive or dead, they only got a heavily redacted letter months after it was sent.

I want to apologize to others on here for my first post being as it is. I stewed a bit about the post I am responding to and finally decided I had to respond.

[KRviator]

I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)And don't forget it was only a month or so after the USS McCain's cousin the USS Fitzgerald tangled with a container ship after failing to give way. Doesn't give you a great deal of confidence they can properly identify and react to threats displayed on their systems if they can't even avoid a threat they see out the bloody window...:ugh:

[dr dre]

Now we ask our young people to go thousands of miles away to ensure Europe can have the oil they want so that you can fuel your plane to do your job. No oil, no Jet-A. No Jet-A, no job by the way.

Wrong. It's currently the Europeans and other third party nations who want to buy oil from Iran and freely trade with Iran, and it's currently the US government trying to prevent that. Opening up Iran to trade and tourism is the best way for them to engage with the world, and it's your government who are interfering with that.

So much for the "home of the free market". Why can't you just let other nations trade with each other on their own terms in peace?

[capngrog]

Denflnt;

Well said.

Cheers,
Grog

[wetbehindear]

An American naval vessel challenges a Russian vessel asks her name and voyage details.

Answer : "Russian war ship"

American again asks about voyage details,

Answer : "Russian warship."

----------------

Denflnt's argument is about a lost paradise. Kishore Mahbubani says it is "temps perdu", won't come back.

percentage of world goods trade 2016
..............export import
USA 14 18
Canada 3 3 Nafta 20 Ex 24 imp.
Mexico 3 3

EU 16 15

China 17 12
Japan 5 5 Asia 26 Ex 20 İmp.
Korea 4 3

Eurasia 42 35 ( Anyone China's railway belt and road ? )

Trump's attempt to cut down China's ascend seems to me same as UK's attempt to cut down Germany's economic power by pushing Germany into WW1.

I would like to add dictum of a American Major-General found very usefull.

1- Never fight unless you have to;
2- Never fight alone; and
3- Never fight for long

America stripping herself off from it's allies

[KRviator]

As an American, I don't want your thanks. But I sure as hell don't need the insults. We do the best we can do, more than any other country can say. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself.I think you need to look beyond WW2 and the immediate effects thereafter.

The question a lot of people seem to ask is how much "defence" is really needed as a direct result of perceived "offensive" moves by the US against other countries and to what end? And let's not forget the cost to other countries dragged into the conflict as a result of Bush's "Either with us or against us..." tripe.

A quick Google shows the so-called War on Terror has run up a tab approaching a trillion dollars, not counting several hundred million more in veterans medical costs, all essentially triggered by the 9/11 attacks. No one is saying those responsible for 9/11 didn't deserve to get their arses handed to them, but at what cost? The US loses 10x that number on the roads every year with barely a peep.

When people spend more on firearms (and defending the concept of an archaic phrase in a 200-year-old document about keeping said firearms) than they do on their own healthcare I think as a country you have sorely misplaced your priorities.

[TehDehZeh]

Now we ask our young people to go thousands of miles away to ensure Europe can have the oil they want so that you can fuel your plane to do your job.
​​​​​​If this is actually how you rationalize the US presence in the Middle East, I am looking forward to hear the truth about Vietnam.

[Gove N.T.]

I think this thread has gone as far as it usefully can and I wish the moderators would park it.

[rmac2]

So if/when the Gulf is closed, and Pakistan is closed, then how...how...do I navigate to the far east?
Via Russia and China, after paying a fortune for Russian jet fuel after the middle Eastern oil flow comes to a halt. This US action in the gulf will significantly strengthen their strongest global rivals. I wonder who is using the US Government brain cell today 🤦*♂️

[rmac2]

Wrong. It's currently the Europeans and other third party nations who want to buy oil from Iran and freely trade with Iran, and it's currently the US government trying to prevent that. Opening up Iran to trade and tourism is the best way for them to engage with the world, and it's your government who are interfering with that.

So much for the "home of the free market". Why can't you just let other nations trade with each other on their own terms in peace?

Its all part of a massive global struggle amongst the top 1% for control or resources and money (whether they are from democratic or autocratic societies, the modus operandi is the same. Use connections and manipulate the legal and political system to their own financial advantage)

So in this case, US wants to secure their access to ME crude resources and keep enough product on the market to make their embargo against Russian products work, which it won't if there is a global shortage.

These people have no Nationality, conscience or soul. All they have is ruthless greed. And they are in control everywhere!!

[rmac2]

I agree with BEagle, those who live in grey boats are notorious for firing at anything they deem a threat. One is reminded of the Falklands conflict where HMS Bristol reported firing sea darts at a 'high flying Lear Jet' which was actually a British AAR formation heading for the Falklands, all squawking correctly... all notified.. but still they fired.

Normally takes only one decent hit to send the ship and its entire compliment to the bottom. Naturally they are a bit nervous

[Ripton]

I have always been a lurker on here. Not an ATP, used to fly single engine Cessnas.

Now we ask our young people to go thousands of miles away to ensure Europe can have the oil they want

And this is out of the goodness of your hearts because you don't actually need the oil due to your ability to obtain what you need through fracking? It hasn't got anything to do with the fact that oil, anywhere in the world, is big business that America is heavily invested in?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti American at all but there is often an arrogance about your foreign policy and its implementation that tends to piss people off.

[rmac2]

I have always been a lurker on here. Not an ATP, used to fly single engine Cessnas.

First of all, I wan't to apologize for my country for inconveniencing you. To ask you to ID yourself while being escorted by fighter aircraft in an area that, evidently, required you to have a fighter escort must have been a real boredom breaker for you. To their defense perhaps they may have either seen three aircraft on their radar or picked up transmissions from the fighters that alerted them to a potential threat. Thank God they communicated with you rather than doing the "American" thing of "shooting first and ask questions later." You know, we Americans are all cowboys by heart.

As to why we are there, many Americans ask the same question. We fought in two European wars in the last century, lost a lot of men and women in the process. Take a trip over to Normandy if you don't believe me. From what I understand they still like us "Yanks" in that region. Our integration into WWII kept most of Europe from having to speak German, despite the fact that we were actually attacked by Japan. Many Americans didn't want to involve ourselves in another European war, that is, until Pearl Harbor. My grandfather went to the theater we weren't trying to actively win, defending Europe was out priority and those who fought in the Pacific suffered from that policy. We helped a lot to win the battle in Europe and we stayed afterwards to ensure the peace. I'm not saying other countries didn't contribute, they did, but it wasn't "our war" at the time. We even spent billions after the war rebuilding Europe, so ya'll wouldn't do it again. We continued to stay so ya'll didn't have to learn Russian, with us picking up most of the tab. Now, few countries in NATO meet their, rather low defense spending expectations in assuming that cost of their own for the defense against the Russians. The Brits do, as well as those countries who fell on the wrong side of the iron curtain after the last "great war."

Now we ask our young people to go thousands of miles away to ensure Europe can have the oil they want so that you can fuel your plane to do your job. No oil, no Jet-A. No Jet-A, no job by the way. We've lost people in the process. Anyone remember the Stark? That captain lost his command and was court martialed for not defending his ship. The USN doesn't allow skippers to make mistakes. No other Navy has the ships to do what we do. You can thank the American taxpayer for that.

As an American, I don't want your thanks. But I sure as hell don't need the insults. We do the best we can do, more than any other country can say. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and my grandfather has his carrier sunk beneath him defending Australia, some thousands of miles away in the Battle of the Coral Sea. He wasn't defending America at the time and I can say that my mother and grandmother never knew if he was alive or dead, they only got a heavily redacted letter months after it was sent.

I want to apologize to others on here for my first post being as it is. I stewed a bit about the post I am responding to and finally decided I had to respond.

Its all about perspective, so here is ours

1. You sat back and allowed UK to do the heavy lifting until 1942.
2. If Hitler hadn't declared war on the US in support of Japan you probably would have continued to do so.
3. You sold us billions of dollars of equipment and profited while we were fighting and slowly bankrupting. We made the last loan payments sometime in the 1980s.
4. UK and commonwealth forces were on parity with the US in numbers and casualties in the European campaign despite having much smaller populations
5. Roosevelts aim was to take over from the British as leader of the "free world". At the end of WW2 while all other fighting parties, Allies and Axis were broke and ruined, the US was intact and in profit, using their strength at that time to seize control of UN, IMF, reserve trading currency and other such international bodies and conventions , which are now used, particularly the financial ones for mafia like control of the global financial system in Americas favour
6. The US has never fought a single war that has not been in its financial interests.

Its all about perspective, depends where you are looking from

[BEagle]

In past years he loved to pass the CVN vs lighthouse story as gospel.

That's totally incorrect, Westy! I have never said that it was true.

[derjodel]

I want to apologize to others on here for my first post being as it is. I stewed a bit about the post I am responding to and finally decided I had to respond.

Denfint,

while your narrative is possibly true from the US citizen/soldier point of view, there is a bigger picture why exactly the US got involved: technology and power.

Germany at the time had really good war technology. The clearest example is V1/V2 rocket, which "just so happens" was the basis of the Saturn program after the war. Imagine a different reality where that technology and knowhow falls into russian hands, and you get a pretty good motivation to get involved in the war.

It was not just the rockets, Germany also had the first jet powered fighter (Me 262), as well as.

Second very important item for the US was Russian influence in Europe. Germans actually helped deflecting Russians from occupying (larger part of) Europe. The clearest example is Finland, which fought Russians with German support (yet, they were not considered Axis). Were it not for Germany, Finland would share the fate of the Baltic states.

Strategically it was very important for the US to prevent Russia access to warm water harbours (hence cut them away from the Mediteranian Sea) so that they would not become too big of a superpower.

In essence, US nuclear program (funded on Germany imigrated knowhow) + German rocket technology (Saturn) + Iron Courtain in the Eastern Europe (and not further to the West) helped the US maintain the balance in the cold war era.

History would have been different also for the US had they not get involved in the "European" WW2.

PS: despite my username, I'm not German.

[BEagle]

Denflnt wrote: To ask you to ID yourself while being escorted by fighter aircraft in an area that, evidently, required you to have a fighter escort must have been a real boredom breaker for you. To their defense perhaps they may have either seen three aircraft on their radar or picked up transmissions from the fighters that alerted them to a potential threat.

Being escorted by fighter aircraft? Hardly - it was a routine AAR trail from Saudi Arabia to Cyprus which was flight planned and being flown in Saudi controlled airspace...

A polite request for identification would have been a different matter - it was the brusque "Identify yourself" and "Clear to proceed" which I found unreasonably arrogant.

[ironbutt57]

Denflnt wrote:

Being escorted by fighter aircraft? Hardly - it was a routine AAR trail from Saudi Arabia to Cyprus which was flight planned and being flown in Saudi controlled airspace...

A polite request for identification would have been a different matter - it was the brusque "Identify yourself" and "Clear to proceed" which I found unreasonably arrogant.

such a tragedy, an ATC person not flowering up his language to your taste, possibly they were using standard phraseology? hope you have found your safe place, and your comfort blanket...

[BluSdUp]

You rely should study some history.

Cpt B

[FlightlessParrot]

Nice job on the Internet Tough Guy act, Beags. If a ship with no supporting aircraft has a high altitude aircraft to identify, and the visibility is not CAVU (as is commonn) and the date time group is back in the dark ages when you flew, you know good and damned well how a VID can't be done.
Your foaming at the mouth is pretty sad. It smacks of "I am a has been, so I'll rant and rave."


I suspect the problem might not be the demand for identification, but the granting of "permission" to procede, as though the US Navy ship had authority to deny permission.

If you try to rule the world, you make a lot of enemies.

[Lonewolf_50]

Parrot, you are probably right about what got Beag's back up ... but sopmeone fying about with a chip in their shoulder will doubtless take offense at anything. If you try to rule the world, you make a lot of enemies. I wonder if the British Empire ever learned that - seems that Beags forgot it, and is still at insulting allies even though Britannia no longer rules the waves. Misplaced arrogance.