Big bang in Swindon area
Shooting down 7500 sqawkers might reassure the general public, but it is not very reassuring for commercial pilots. If I ever get hijacked, it will not be an easy decision to dial in 7500. I would probably only do it if 100% certain I was on a one-way terminal flight anyway.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
You probably would be if you dialled it up in those circumstances in the present security climate.
You may as well just shove the stick fully forward and hold it there, in a "terminal" area of your own choosing.
You may as well just shove the stick fully forward and hold it there, in a "terminal" area of your own choosing.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'Follow Me' signs are all very well and good, but do the Helo crews carry signs in Arabic etc, it maybe that a non English speaking person wishes to commit a crime against the sovereign territory.
The Gazelle image linked earlier show the registration mark made out of Duct tape, hmmm?
Jolly good show to all concerned last night, the Red Tops would have had a field day if no action had been taken, Large G &Ts all round.
The Gazelle image linked earlier show the registration mark made out of Duct tape, hmmm?
Jolly good show to all concerned last night, the Red Tops would have had a field day if no action had been taken, Large G &Ts all round.
More hogwash - an automatic shoot down is not guaranteed with 7500.
On most big jets the squawk is buried deep in the FMS menus and won't be obviously apparent unless you know where to look.
On most big jets the squawk is buried deep in the FMS menus and won't be obviously apparent unless you know where to look.
More hogwash - an automatic shoot down is not guaranteed with 7500.
I have no idea whether it is or not guaranteed - I am not "in the know".
But given that the exact policy is likely to be "secret" I have no way of knowing, so I think I'd just not take the risk...
On most big jets the squawk is buried deep in the FMS menus and won't be obviously apparent unless you know where to look.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
And certainly not on most GA aircraft, and helicopters, even ex-military ones such as the Gazelle.
Your efforts here will possibly persuade some to look deeper into the workings of the FMS.
Your efforts here will possibly persuade some to look deeper into the workings of the FMS.
ShyTorque, There is no need to not band anything about SSR/IFF (anything other than Mode 4 that is) as it is used in Civiee street and is totally unclassified. Also any terrorist with half a brain can switch the SSR Transponder off, which is exactly what the 4 terrorist teams did on 9/11. As for all the KOS's who think that a hijacked helicopter is not a threat, anybody remember the Helicopter based prison break in 1987 from Gartree prison.
Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 13th Apr 2012 at 21:02.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
There's absolutely no need to send live armed Typhoons supersonic over land to intercept them. MOD can relax and just get D&D to ask a passing helicopter to check out the "rogue" aircraft.
Over here in the land of the brave, sending F-16s to intercept fat-fingered transponder operators and wayward PPLs is the norm, simply because being seen to be doing something reassures the great unwashed.
This is today' s TFR for Tampa - note the "deadly force".
FDC 2/3186 ZMA PART 1 OF 5 FL.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS TAMPA, FLORIDA APRIL 13, 2012 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS 'NATIONAL DEFENSE AIRSPACE'. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/SECURITY PERSONNEL. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ACTIONS MAY ALSO BE TAKEN AGAINST A PILOT WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OR ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR PROCEDURES ANNOUNCED IN THIS NOTAM: A) THE FAA MAY TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTIES AND THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AIRMEN CERTIFICATES; OR B) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING CHARGES UNDER TITLE 49 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 46307; OR C) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST THE AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE AIRCRAFT POSES AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the helicopters also carry a "As you appear not to be following me is there any chance you could let us know where you're off to?" sign?
Or a "Whilst I'm sure that you've thought this through, have you considered what happens to a helo upon impact with anything?...The chances are you will crash into all sorts of things but not your intended target." sign.
Or maybe even a "If you'd worked harder at school you could have hijacked a real aircraft." sign.
Or a "Whilst I'm sure that you've thought this through, have you considered what happens to a helo upon impact with anything?...The chances are you will crash into all sorts of things but not your intended target." sign.
Or maybe even a "If you'd worked harder at school you could have hijacked a real aircraft." sign.
Sh!tehawk
Do you really think that hi-jack terrorists just stumble on a plane, manage to break into the cockpit and then just get lucky by stumbling over the myriad of dials/gauges/MFDs - or do you think they might do a bit of research, a bit of flight training and read up on the open-source documentation on the aircraft they plan to take over?
Or do you think they hang on my every word to plan their attack for them?
You take paranoia to all time high, me old...
LJ
Do you really think that hi-jack terrorists just stumble on a plane, manage to break into the cockpit and then just get lucky by stumbling over the myriad of dials/gauges/MFDs - or do you think they might do a bit of research, a bit of flight training and read up on the open-source documentation on the aircraft they plan to take over?
Or do you think they hang on my every word to plan their attack for them?
You take paranoia to all time high, me old...
LJ
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Experts
LJ, I am amazed by the number of people on here who would like us to think of them as "experts" and their comments on this topic. This stuff happens every day (although not always with a supersonic transit). I think my personal record (not all that long ago) was 4 scrambles plus another 3 "Q to cockpit" in a 12 hour period just to deal with civilian aircrew who forgot/couldn't be bothered to change M3/radio frequency etc.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys. First post and I'm not a pilot so be gentle 
I have a question about this incident. Why didn't local ATC contact this fella to ask him if he was actually in trouble? If they had done so it would have alerted him to his mistake and saved all the bother...
Also, any ideas what the unidentified silver object might be in the Daily Wail story? It's been reported by a lot of witnesses who have stated that one of the Typhoons took an interest in it...
I have a question about this incident. Why didn't local ATC contact this fella to ask him if he was actually in trouble? If they had done so it would have alerted him to his mistake and saved all the bother...
Also, any ideas what the unidentified silver object might be in the Daily Wail story? It's been reported by a lot of witnesses who have stated that one of the Typhoons took an interest in it...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Leon J,
As I said earlier, if a transponder is now seen by ATC as set to 7500, it's unlikely to be for real, for the reasons you have just stated, i.e. it would probably be turned off in those circumstances by a trained person. You're repeating almost exactly what I posted on that subject but you're still trying to disagree with me over that same point! The red mist you seem to be suffering seems to have clouded your vision.
Having done my time as both a military and civilian flyer (about twenty years of each), I do know a little about security and the real threat, on both sides of the fence. I would think every professional flyer here, and most of the ppl holders too, already knew what you decided to copy and paste as a quote, as if it were some clever revelation. So it was unecessary to post it, we all know about it. I asked you a simple question about whether it was wise to post the transponder codes in question, nothing more.
Because I asked that initial question, you seem to be intent on proving me wrong at every turn. You now seem to be turning to childish insults, even to the point of deliberately mis-spelling my user name. As the rules of the forum here say, play the ball, not the player.
You've since gone on to post other stuff that might be best left off a public website already well known to be in the gaze of the media. You have obviously missed the point that the MOD haven't said precisely what caused the alert; they quoted slightly obtusely, off to one side. You've obviously not wondered why? Your blinkered idea of what type of individual constitutes a security threat to an aircraft is not necessarily the full picture.
As I said earlier, if a transponder is now seen by ATC as set to 7500, it's unlikely to be for real, for the reasons you have just stated, i.e. it would probably be turned off in those circumstances by a trained person. You're repeating almost exactly what I posted on that subject but you're still trying to disagree with me over that same point! The red mist you seem to be suffering seems to have clouded your vision.
Having done my time as both a military and civilian flyer (about twenty years of each), I do know a little about security and the real threat, on both sides of the fence. I would think every professional flyer here, and most of the ppl holders too, already knew what you decided to copy and paste as a quote, as if it were some clever revelation. So it was unecessary to post it, we all know about it. I asked you a simple question about whether it was wise to post the transponder codes in question, nothing more.
Because I asked that initial question, you seem to be intent on proving me wrong at every turn. You now seem to be turning to childish insults, even to the point of deliberately mis-spelling my user name. As the rules of the forum here say, play the ball, not the player.
You've since gone on to post other stuff that might be best left off a public website already well known to be in the gaze of the media. You have obviously missed the point that the MOD haven't said precisely what caused the alert; they quoted slightly obtusely, off to one side. You've obviously not wondered why? Your blinkered idea of what type of individual constitutes a security threat to an aircraft is not necessarily the full picture.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Canadian Break, I'm not an expert on the topic, if that reference was toward me.
However, I did hear all the radio calls made by London Centre during the incident in question yesterday, so I do know what was said and what was deliberately not referred to, it was quite obvious to anyone in the know.
However, I did hear all the radio calls made by London Centre during the incident in question yesterday, so I do know what was said and what was deliberately not referred to, it was quite obvious to anyone in the know.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Back to the fold in the map
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
ST
Getting ATC to talk to them and ask them if they really meant to squawk 75/76/77 etc presumes that they are talking to ATC and, in my experience, this is most often not the case - which raises the stakes a notch or two.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Shytorque
You "doth protest too much" in my opinion. You have antogonised Leon from the start and if I see any "red mist" it is coming from your keyboard. There have been no security breaches from the very first posts on "7500" and your initial post would appear to have backed you into a corner that you are struggling to reconcile.
Get over it. The use of mode 3 to indicate intent (whatever that intent is) using very well known codes, with a publically available system (mode 3A) and without the use of voice is not an issue for discussion.
Finally, as an ex-policeman, military FJ pilot and now civil pilot I think you have vastly overstepped the "outrage bus" as Leon likes to call it.
CPL Clott
You "doth protest too much" in my opinion. You have antogonised Leon from the start and if I see any "red mist" it is coming from your keyboard. There have been no security breaches from the very first posts on "7500" and your initial post would appear to have backed you into a corner that you are struggling to reconcile.
Get over it. The use of mode 3 to indicate intent (whatever that intent is) using very well known codes, with a publically available system (mode 3A) and without the use of voice is not an issue for discussion.
Finally, as an ex-policeman, military FJ pilot and now civil pilot I think you have vastly overstepped the "outrage bus" as Leon likes to call it.
CPL Clott
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
CB, ATC couldn't speak to the pilot involved, he obviously wasn't listening on 121.5 (nor was there a requirement for him to have done so). They made contact with the pilot of another civilian aircraft nearby who had the "unknown rogue" aircraft in sight. He provided useful information to them and even listening to the short exchange of dialogue from the outside, it was immediately obvious that the "rogue" aircraft, in all likelihood, posed no threat to anyone.
The RAF turned up some time afterwards.
Corporal Clott
As far as me being outraged is concerned, you couldn't be further from the truth. If you see a simple discussion, by someone with a slightly alternative view as "outrage", I think it's not me who has the problem.
The RAF turned up some time afterwards.
Corporal Clott
As far as me being outraged is concerned, you couldn't be further from the truth. If you see a simple discussion, by someone with a slightly alternative view as "outrage", I think it's not me who has the problem.
Canadian Break
I agree, the problem is that some of our "little darlings" can't cope with monitoring Guard and constantly moan about being distracted by PPL students making Practise Pan calls whilst they do their pre-decent brief over a coffee and a donut - so much for CRM (ie. the non-handling pilot can monitor Guard whilst the handling pilot can concentrate on the job at hand with the Guard turned down). So there are most definately many aircraft flying on a day-to-day basis without VHF Guard (121.5) going through their shell-likes.
Now when "the Swiss cheese" holes start to line up in the Reason Swiss Cheese Model with an inadvertent selection of 7500 or failing to contact the next ATCRU on hand-over in controlled airspace and the inability to hear the calls on Guard - you have the beginnings of raised suspiscions of unusual behaviour and a probable call to the military.
I'm sure that Her Majesty's finest wasted 10tons of AVTUR on someone who had made an unfortunate and unintended error - or had suffered from comms failure or a transponder malfunction. But quite rightly they were sent to check on something that was confirmed as suspiscious/unusual as they have been for over 10 years since the Twin Towers.
And before the "outrage bus" fires up again about getting smoked with 7500 squawking and no radio - there are many more things that need to happen or be confirmed before engagement auth is given; those in the know will know what these are (eh, shytorque? ).
LJ
I agree, the problem is that some of our "little darlings" can't cope with monitoring Guard and constantly moan about being distracted by PPL students making Practise Pan calls whilst they do their pre-decent brief over a coffee and a donut - so much for CRM (ie. the non-handling pilot can monitor Guard whilst the handling pilot can concentrate on the job at hand with the Guard turned down
). So there are most definately many aircraft flying on a day-to-day basis without VHF Guard (121.5) going through their shell-likes.Now when "the Swiss cheese" holes start to line up in the Reason Swiss Cheese Model with an inadvertent selection of 7500 or failing to contact the next ATCRU on hand-over in controlled airspace and the inability to hear the calls on Guard - you have the beginnings of raised suspiscions of unusual behaviour and a probable call to the military.
I'm sure that Her Majesty's finest wasted 10tons of AVTUR on someone who had made an unfortunate and unintended error - or had suffered from comms failure or a transponder malfunction. But quite rightly they were sent to check on something that was confirmed as suspiscious/unusual as they have been for over 10 years since the Twin Towers.
And before the "outrage bus" fires up again about getting smoked with 7500 squawking and no radio - there are many more things that need to happen or be confirmed before engagement auth is given; those in the know will know what these are (eh, shytorque?
).LJ