Weather Avoidance in Bizarro-world
Thread Starter
Weather Avoidance in Bizarro-world
Copied from the R & N forum. 747 probably a write-off.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ver-china.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ver-china.html
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Alpine Sudetenwaltz
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got to face it. PRC airspace is just one giant rolling goatf@ck of an accident waiting to happen. I see it often enough to feel nothing but empathy and amazement at the fortitude demonstrated by our KA colleagues. The only place to see China from is 10700 metres and that is 6000 ft too low.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they won't give you a deviation turn around go back or divert to another port
Dump fuel if necessary and let the company sort it out with China ATC
If a few aircraft did that things might well change .
Dump fuel if necessary and let the company sort it out with China ATC
If a few aircraft did that things might well change .
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CR I agree that avoiding the WX is better than crashing. But how do you know it's unlikely you'll be intercepted, or what the consequences might be?
Are you saying they're just incompetent, or less trigger happy than say - the Russians at Sakhalin?
Global events might well play a major role in how trigger happy they are on any particular day - especially along the Taiwan corridor, or around the islands they've grabbed. Time will tell.
Are you saying they're just incompetent, or less trigger happy than say - the Russians at Sakhalin?
Global events might well play a major role in how trigger happy they are on any particular day - especially along the Taiwan corridor, or around the islands they've grabbed. Time will tell.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Chinese are not going to shoot down a regularly scheduled CX flight on a main airway. Good grief. As Trafalgar said, ask for a deviation, twice, politely, then declare a pan and TELL them what heading you are turning on to. Show some balls people. Are you just going to fly straight into a red painting CB ?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's being flippant? What other sensible choice is there? You need to divert for weather. Either you do, and avoid a verifiable dangerous situation, or you don't and trade not upsetting the Chinese for a potential danger to the aircraft and your passengers. Not really that difficult to make the decision is it? Again, what are they going to do, shoot you down? That will look good on the BBC won't it. It's about time that the worlds airlines start demanding some common sense from the Chinese authorities. Look at the photos of that 747 again, and then tell me that you won't divert around wx because they say 'cannot'.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You won't care what it looks like if you're dead. It has happened! On numerous occasions. Why do you feel so sure it won't happen again?
Personally I rather like the proposal to just ask to hold in position or turn back. I'm really interested to know what they'd do. You're presenting your solution as the only one available to us. Not true. Press-on-itis! You are dying to stick your own neck out which in fact only plays into their hands by legitimising their dysfunctional system. Why do you want to do that?
Why not throw the problem back in their own court!
If enough pilots asked to hold/turn back I think it'd look pretty bad 'on the BBC' too. And you'd get to legitimately witness and enjoy the discomfort it causes them. From the comfort of home.
In reality this is a problem that ICAO needs to get on top of. And IFALPA too!
Personally I rather like the proposal to just ask to hold in position or turn back. I'm really interested to know what they'd do. You're presenting your solution as the only one available to us. Not true. Press-on-itis! You are dying to stick your own neck out which in fact only plays into their hands by legitimising their dysfunctional system. Why do you want to do that?
Why not throw the problem back in their own court!
If enough pilots asked to hold/turn back I think it'd look pretty bad 'on the BBC' too. And you'd get to legitimately witness and enjoy the discomfort it causes them. From the comfort of home.
In reality this is a problem that ICAO needs to get on top of. And IFALPA too!
Last edited by Algol; 6th Jul 2015 at 13:30.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're NOT going to get shot down. When is the last time a nation knowingly shot down a civil airliner ?
You're likely NOT in a weapons engagement zone to begin with for chinese SAMs.
The chinese don't fly continuous armed CAPs looking for errant civil airliners. AND intercepts take significant resources and time.
AND you're talking to someone who can talk to others. Cannot to them means don't want to.
Do what you need to do declaring what you need to declare. The worst thing that will likely happen is you have to explain what you did later. This is pretty easy to do when it involves storms.
You're likely NOT in a weapons engagement zone to begin with for chinese SAMs.
The chinese don't fly continuous armed CAPs looking for errant civil airliners. AND intercepts take significant resources and time.
AND you're talking to someone who can talk to others. Cannot to them means don't want to.
Do what you need to do declaring what you need to declare. The worst thing that will likely happen is you have to explain what you did later. This is pretty easy to do when it involves storms.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...down_incidents
Note the CX shoot down. By the PLA, over Hainan.
Note the CX shoot down. By the PLA, over Hainan.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um....yeah.
Secondary radar and transponder use didn't exist as we know it in 1954 (although there were forms of IFF available).
And few dispute the dangers of traveling through known combat zones or areas of terrorism. China ain't that. AND has an IADS.
Secondary radar and transponder use didn't exist as we know it in 1954 (although there were forms of IFF available).
And few dispute the dangers of traveling through known combat zones or areas of terrorism. China ain't that. AND has an IADS.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Iran Air Airbus shot down by US Vincennes was squawking a civilian transponder code. But they were targetted anyway. By the 'good guys' with all the 'high tech' gear, and engagement rules etc.
And have you ever heard of aircraft 'false flag' ops? Black Ops?
Its easy to read up on. Google it. I'll bet the PLA have. They might not be put off one iota by your civilian transponder code.
The aircraft that attacked that CX flight may have been rogues. As in - "acting off their own bat". That wouldn't make me feel any better about it. Hotheads, who saw a target and went for it - I'd say there are lots of those in the PLA. They run the country after all, and don't hesitate to use force even on their own people.
China isn't a combat zone?
Hainan wasn't a combat zone in 1954. Hong Kong wasn't at war with China in 1954. Nor was the US or GB.
In fact Hainan seems to be a major hive of hotheaded PLA activity.
This one was in 2001 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Yes, military aircraft on both sides - but the whole scenario was reminiscent of the 1954 incident. And it rather puts paid to your proposition that intercepts are too hard and difficult for the Chinese.
Anyhow - do it your way matey.
And have you ever heard of aircraft 'false flag' ops? Black Ops?
Its easy to read up on. Google it. I'll bet the PLA have. They might not be put off one iota by your civilian transponder code.
The aircraft that attacked that CX flight may have been rogues. As in - "acting off their own bat". That wouldn't make me feel any better about it. Hotheads, who saw a target and went for it - I'd say there are lots of those in the PLA. They run the country after all, and don't hesitate to use force even on their own people.
China isn't a combat zone?
Hainan wasn't a combat zone in 1954. Hong Kong wasn't at war with China in 1954. Nor was the US or GB.
In fact Hainan seems to be a major hive of hotheaded PLA activity.
This one was in 2001 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Yes, military aircraft on both sides - but the whole scenario was reminiscent of the 1954 incident. And it rather puts paid to your proposition that intercepts are too hard and difficult for the Chinese.
Anyhow - do it your way matey.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Well aware of that fact. It was also over 50 years ago..the world has moved on. If you seriously think that China will shoot down a CX airliner on a regularly scheduled flight on a recognised airway, then you go ahead and turn around or go into a holding pattern (and what if they won't "let" you do either of those manouvers either?). I won't fly into a dangerous CB. I will divert around it. CX, CAD, ICAO and China can sort out the details later.
Last edited by mngmt mole; 6th Jul 2015 at 16:55.