Canadian CF-18s intercept Cathay Pacific "bomb" threat plane
Thread Starter
Canadian CF-18s intercept Cathay Pacific "bomb" threat plane
BBC News - Canada jets escort passenger plane 'under bomb threat'
Can anybody please explain this SOP?
If there is potentially a bomb on board, why did the CF-18s fly so close that they alarmed already stressed passengers, and were in potential harms way themselves if a bomb did detonate?
Surely it would be better to intercept the aircraft, but remain out of sight of passengers (and any hijackers who may also be aboard)?
Can anybody please explain this SOP?
If there is potentially a bomb on board, why did the CF-18s fly so close that they alarmed already stressed passengers, and were in potential harms way themselves if a bomb did detonate?
Surely it would be better to intercept the aircraft, but remain out of sight of passengers (and any hijackers who may also be aboard)?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only guess, but if you want to be visible to the cockpit for hand signals etc, you're incidentally going to be visible to the passengers; don't know what the threat was.
Thread Starter
I can only guess, but if you want to be visible to the cockpit for hand signals etc, you're incidentally going to be visible to the passengers; don't know what the threat was.
Thread Starter
Deliverance - can you answer my question? I know full well my SOPs if I am intercepted - I am asking about the military tactic used here - why the intercept, why fly so closely?
An intercept is of no assistance to an aircraft unless it is has lost all navigation and communication equipment.
This aircraft was not lost, and had not lost its communications, nor was it deviating from its intended destination, nor was it hijacked and therefore a threat. Surely it is better - if an intercept is necessary for security reasons - to stay out of sight of passengers and crew, and indeed clear of the risk of any blast damage? Why give away your presence when it gives you no advantage?
An intercept is of no assistance to an aircraft unless it is has lost all navigation and communication equipment.
This aircraft was not lost, and had not lost its communications, nor was it deviating from its intended destination, nor was it hijacked and therefore a threat. Surely it is better - if an intercept is necessary for security reasons - to stay out of sight of passengers and crew, and indeed clear of the risk of any blast damage? Why give away your presence when it gives you no advantage?
Last edited by Trim Stab; 16th May 2010 at 08:47.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not stifling your debate and I am sure you guys know this, but some onlookers may get confused; please be in no doubt the aircraft was not in distress.
Reading from a Statement issued by Cathay Pacific, it would seem the Canadian Authorities (Vancouver Airport) received 2 bomb threats relating to an outbound flight (CX838), Vancouver to HK. The flight that was escorted was the inbound flight (CX839) being the same A340 that would later return as CX838.
Reading between the lines neither the airline nor the crew initiated this action.
Ultra-ultra cautious reaction by the Canadian Authorities I would suggest; good training value perhaps???
Reading from a Statement issued by Cathay Pacific, it would seem the Canadian Authorities (Vancouver Airport) received 2 bomb threats relating to an outbound flight (CX838), Vancouver to HK. The flight that was escorted was the inbound flight (CX839) being the same A340 that would later return as CX838.
Reading between the lines neither the airline nor the crew initiated this action.
Ultra-ultra cautious reaction by the Canadian Authorities I would suggest; good training value perhaps???
Thread Starter
Because you can't rely totally on comms, so I would guess that they were ordered in to check and confirm the cockpit activity, no avoiding being seen by the passengers I'm afraid.
It would also have to be a pretty big explosive device on board for it to be a concern to the other aircraft.
It seems to me that the tactics used by NORAD in this example were not very sophisticated or flexible.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought it would be SOP every time to visually check the cockpit as mentioned, and also there is no real point having a 'surprise' or tactical advantage by being unseen by any potential terrorists. Surely the visible threat of action is worthwhile to potentially resolve a threat situation. And even an F3 should be able to take an airbus without creeping up on it?? 
Seems that what happened is probably how any sensible airforce would approach the problem. Regarding the risk of detonation to the fighters, I would hazard a guess that a hijacker or terrorist uses a small bomb to cause the failure and hence destruction of the plane, not some hollywood 'plane blows up and takes fighters with it' huge bomb which would no doubt be quite difficult to get on a plane???
Seems that what happened is probably how any sensible airforce would approach the problem. Regarding the risk of detonation to the fighters, I would hazard a guess that a hijacker or terrorist uses a small bomb to cause the failure and hence destruction of the plane, not some hollywood 'plane blows up and takes fighters with it' huge bomb which would no doubt be quite difficult to get on a plane???
Thread Starter
And even an F3 should be able to take an airbus without creeping up on it?? 
Anyway, military interceptors can't fly subsonically in icing conditions for extended periods, so their capability is rather limited as escorts to civilian aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they were not intercepting the aircraft. Maybe they had been told to shadow the aircraft..... Possibly they could have been told to mark the aircraft.....now that would have been tasty.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure where this thread is going.
The SOP's used (to use that term) are nothing new, and have their sound reasons for use.
This is not the place to debate them IMHO, and as per above, you will know why they were used if you need to.
This is still a public forum, and if any terrorist was reading this thread to gain life taking (as opposed to saving) info, and did not know that there may be devices of various kinds around the cockpit, he will now
.
Are we going to go on calling for explanations as to how and why this was ordered (so any potential baddies can learn from this)?
Just my two penneth
The SOP's used (to use that term) are nothing new, and have their sound reasons for use.
This is not the place to debate them IMHO, and as per above, you will know why they were used if you need to.
This is still a public forum, and if any terrorist was reading this thread to gain life taking (as opposed to saving) info, and did not know that there may be devices of various kinds around the cockpit, he will now
.Are we going to go on calling for explanations as to how and why this was ordered (so any potential baddies can learn from this)?
Just my two penneth
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im suprised that {a} We had two servieable aircraft to send up.{b} We could find two pilots current enough to fly them{c} That after our security comitments for the Games/G8/G28/G .God knows what all ,that the whole Air Force was not on stand down to recouperate from these efforts, dont blame the troops, but we are a long way down the road from the RCAF days, maybe such incidents will spring forth some more funds for the military. and by the way, the intercept orders are in the public domain, wouldnt be much point in keeping them under wraps, they havnt changed since the Cold War days, back then most of the intercepts had four bloody great turbo prop engines, could set your watch from them they were so regular!
Thread Starter
Your data on this is inaccurate....
