Airliner escorted by RAF into Manchester Airport
Scudpilot wrote
From the 2012 Gazelle incident.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...ambled-over-uk
Just wondered, I believe that supersonic is usually prohibited over land, just wondered if QRA were allowed to ignore this rule, or whether it would have to be authorized "per job" as it were.
Authorisation was given for one of the Typhoons to transit at supersonic speed over land, which resulted in the sonic boom heard by the public.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A Typhoon on your wing tip could be for many reasons - bit fell off, oil leak, radios u/s, flight plan problem etc. Tell the truth or flannel?
Once in. French airspace they sent 4 fighters up to us. The only answer was "Yes Sir, whatever you say Sir."
Once in. French airspace they sent 4 fighters up to us. The only answer was "Yes Sir, whatever you say Sir."
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sending typhoons to intercept passenger airliners is as pointless and fanciful as putting surface to air missile launchers on the roof tops of London flats during the Olympics. ..No western government in their right mind could ever sanction blasting hundreds of innocent passengers all over the English countryside! It's a ridiculous idea to think that democracy would allow that to happen, MH17 was apparently hit by mistake, just imagine the international reaction to targeted strike authorised by a civilised country against an aircraft registered in a different state! Wow the fall out would be too awful to imagine from every conceivable angle. Imagine the scenario...Captain deems the threat credible according to his/her Ops Manual Part A definition of credible and calls ATC who call in the typhoon. Typhoon pilot then instructs airline Captain to divert aircraft over a designated area for destruction!! Sorry chaps as fanciful as this threat might be i'm afraid that Mr typhoon is about as useful in this situation as doing nothing. If it were required for shooting up airliners it would position behind and above his target out of sight of passengers and crew. Remember Helios at Athens, that was intercepted and even though no one was flying it they left it alone to its own fate.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Encore
You'll be horrified to learn that here in Aus at one of the CGOGM or G20 meetings, the authority to fire was delegated to the two senior RAAF officers in charge of airspace, security covering that event. It raised a few eyebrows in the media.
You'll be horrified to learn that here in Aus at one of the CGOGM or G20 meetings, the authority to fire was delegated to the two senior RAAF officers in charge of airspace, security covering that event. It raised a few eyebrows in the media.
"Remember Helios at Athens, that was intercepted and even though no one was flying it they left it alone to its own fate."
because it wasn't pointed towards downtown, if a suicidal hijacker wanted to crash the plane somewhere in Central London you could be sure it would be shot down and noone would accuse british authorities because the people would be dead anyway, damage limitation simply
because it wasn't pointed towards downtown, if a suicidal hijacker wanted to crash the plane somewhere in Central London you could be sure it would be shot down and noone would accuse british authorities because the people would be dead anyway, damage limitation simply
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason for the typhoon on your wingtip is surely obvious?
anything even slightly suspect happens after this point your getting shot down
I wouldn't be so sure....the moment they suspect your heading towards a populated area without ATC comms...guess what there blasting you out the sky 100% there is no way in this day and age a western government will allow a hijacked plane anywhere near a built up area
anything even slightly suspect happens after this point your getting shot down
No western government in their right mind could ever sanction blasting hundreds of innocent passengers all over the English countryside!
ExRR
A few reasons come to mind:
1) You are safer on the ground than in the air.
No crash landing means lower risk.
It takes a much bigger bomb to blow up an entire plane on the ground than to knock a plane out of the sky or disable it.
An explosion can injure or kill people, but depending on where it is located, the damage could be minor. It might not set off the fuel, so most people would be okay. A bomb that can fit in your shoe isn't very big.
2) They don't want the bad guys to get away.
Emergency, unplanned evacuation at an airfield could mean chaos. The perps could escape or drop vital evidence when people run away from the plane.
If passengers stay on the plane, any witness who saw suspicious activity is right there, on the plane, staring at the people in question.
3) It's easier to understand and recreate the scene, assuming nothing bad happens.
4) It reduces panic and potential injuries from an emergency evacuation, especially if it a hoax or nothing happens.
If this was a hoax, it was one very expensive joke. They should be held liable for the costs. Maybe they'll learn something.
I would like to see an answer as to why passengers on a plane with a suspected explosive device are not immediately evacuated.
1) You are safer on the ground than in the air.
No crash landing means lower risk.
It takes a much bigger bomb to blow up an entire plane on the ground than to knock a plane out of the sky or disable it.
An explosion can injure or kill people, but depending on where it is located, the damage could be minor. It might not set off the fuel, so most people would be okay. A bomb that can fit in your shoe isn't very big.
2) They don't want the bad guys to get away.
Emergency, unplanned evacuation at an airfield could mean chaos. The perps could escape or drop vital evidence when people run away from the plane.
If passengers stay on the plane, any witness who saw suspicious activity is right there, on the plane, staring at the people in question.
3) It's easier to understand and recreate the scene, assuming nothing bad happens.
4) It reduces panic and potential injuries from an emergency evacuation, especially if it a hoax or nothing happens.
If this was a hoax, it was one very expensive joke. They should be held liable for the costs. Maybe they'll learn something.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandhurst, Berkshire
Age: 57
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that I agree that sending up a Typhoon would have had no effect.
How would 9/11 have panned out if the Americans had ability to shoot down aircraft? The Pentagon (At least) would have ended differently.
How would 9/11 have panned out if the Americans had ability to shoot down aircraft? The Pentagon (At least) would have ended differently.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it definately wasn`t close formation
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The intent may be to point weapons and make threats or make an attack on whoever is in control of the aircraft, but it threatens and attacks me as well. I can't very well get off the aircraft or away from the people being threatened.
Maybe the QRA aircraft is there because the aircraft I am in has some problem that is not an attack (or threat of attack), takeover of control, etc. In which case "hello there!", but if one just showed up, I would be thinking mainly that the reason it is there is to shoot me down. If the reason was not to shoot me down but just to look and assist, the RAF could send up an unarmed aircraft instead.
The armed QRA aircraft are not there to protect the passengers in the aircraft. They're there to protect everyone else.
"How would 9/11 have panned out if the Americans had ability to shoot down aircraft?"
coordination between civilian and military authorities was very bad(you have something on wikipedia), otherwise they would intercept and shoot down 1 or 2 planes
coordination between civilian and military authorities was very bad(you have something on wikipedia), otherwise they would intercept and shoot down 1 or 2 planes
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nicolai - calm your fears. It is impossible to shoot down an aircraft from a 'formation' position (except directly line astern in which case you would not see the fighter). The time to worry is when you CANNOT see the fighter.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have so many latched onto the hijack scenario? If there had been the slightest hint, then I'd fully agree with the various points. But there wasn't. The worry is, were the powers-that-be using the same reasoning? If the only tool in your box is a missile armed interceptor, must every problem be a suspected hijack?
Given that the escort might have ultimately had to destroy the escortee, why wsa it allowed to approach over densely populated Tameside and Stockport, with the triggering event possibly being a turn towards central Manchester, rather than over the relatively unpopulated northern Cheshire?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there had been the slightest hint, then I'd fully agree with the various points.
Using one member of a hijack team, posing as a lone drunk or unstable individual, to frame the situation and flush out any unknown counter-measures would be a smart move before changing the plot. Prepare for the worse and hope for the best is simple prudence.
Last edited by jmmilner; 9th Aug 2014 at 19:22.