London Airspace Restricted/security Alert

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<"proceed towards and across Central London under severe ATC restriction">>

"Severe ATC restriction" does not usually apply to an aircraft in trouble. ATC renders every possible assistance with navigation and subsequent priority in the landing sequence.

[BOAC]

How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.)

- you've got it

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by anotherthing

What else do you expect to happen? Processes need to be started so that if an incident escalates, there is not a mad scramble to 'catch up'.

The timeline you give (react, plan for the worst, determine under control, stand down) entierly makes sense.

Having, and initiating, a plan to clear an airfield + airspace to handle an escalating incident of this type also entirely makes sense.

What I don't get is the plan being to use LHR. I would have thought that our busiest airport next to our largest city and most valuable target would have been the last place you would designate for handling such an incident.

[Dont Hang Up]

It was also deemed prudent to start the process of sterilising airspace, just in case the incident developed.

That's the bit I and one or two others are struggling with.

What level of risk warrants sterilising the airspace but then allowing the aircraft to pass over Central London?

[BOAC]

That's the bit I and one or two others are struggling with

- make that at least three. (Hopefully) the logical explanation is that the 'situation' was downgraded from WW3 by the a/c and it was deemed ok to both stand down the escorts and route to LHR rather than a designated 'emergency' alternate.

[camel]

Why LHR?

This was an american airline right ?

Hank on finals:

'hey dude they got 2 runways at gartwick?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by blackpants

Every decision made was made for the right reasons.

Please trust those who are trusted with the responsibility for this Operation.

Come on, in every level of the business, from the screeners up to government departments, security is what you assign people to when they are no use anywhere else in the organisation.

[MATELO]

How is sending up fighters going to help me? (Answer: it isn't.)

Yes it will.
If the aircraft does actually get over run and the terrorists impose a radio silence and switch of transponders etc etc. Having a "pair of eyes" on the target may just prove useful.

No point in having a QRA, so that if it is ever needed people turn around and say "Well, it wasnt needed last time, so we didnt think there was any point sending it this time".

Get the aircraft airbourne and then worry about what to do.

[BOAC]

I think the point he was making was that it will not actually help HIM!

[the heavy heavy]

BOAC,

the point is it's not really there to help him in the event of it being hijacked and having a hostile at the controls.

In my day we stressed about getting nice piccies of the friendly playboy reading reds and making sure we got the right ID. I lived in hope that i'd actually get to be involved in some 'clancy-esque' drug busting intervention! How times have sadly changed!

I was told by a good mate recently that before his new pups went on QRA for the first time he had a chat with them to make sure they understood that they could be asked to shoot down a 747 with 300 souls on board. He wanted to be able to look them in the eyes and be 100% sure they understood and accepted the responsibilty they where undertaking.

[FullWings]

I was told by a good mate recently that before his new pups went on QRA for the first time he had a chat with them to make sure they understood that they could be asked to shoot down a 747 with 300 souls on board. He wanted to be able to look them in the eyes and be 100% sure they understood and accepted the responsibilty they where undertaking.

Well, my responsibility is to keep those 300 souls attached to their respective bodies and in that light I, for one, will NOT be passing on any information that might lead to the launch of fighters. It's bad enough that the US Navy can't tell the difference between an A300 and a F-14, without giving them or their allies extra encouragement re: "problems onboard".

[the heavy heavy]

Full Wings,

if you can talk to atc then you have no worries. If you can't talk but you can follow icao visual instructions then your fine. If the guy flying your jet does neither then what would you have the relevant authorities do?

very easy to diss the boys in blue being asked to consider if they can contemplate doing the unthinkable.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by the heavy heavy

BOAC,
the point is it's not really there to help him in the event of it being hijacked and having a hostile at the controls.

- I was answering matelo. As a one-time 'pup' I am well aware of the tasks involved.

For full wings - no matter what info you do or do not 'pass on', if you have indicated that this sort of 'problem' exists you will be unable to influence further events in this arena. Others will decide. So, the choice is, say nothing or accept. Welcome to the post 11/9 world.

[the heavy heavy]

BOAC,

apologies if I offended thee, i'm not on boac watch and haven't instant recall as to your past. we where all pups once! I always took/used it as term of endearment in case you thought i was using it otherwise.

rgds,

HH.

[awblain]

Role of QRA

Is the fighter there for the good of the crew and passengers?

-

I would suggest that its main role in today's world is to provide better information to decision makers on the ground; hopefully, for them to make better decisions, mainly for the good of thousands on the ground ahead rather than hundreds onboard.

Maybe the captain doesn't look like he's expected to. Maybe there's damage to the aircraft.

-

I presume the decision to proceed to Heathrow was sensible, based on reports from the fighter. As a result, the human inspection probably helped to reduce the net disruption.