Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airliner escorted by RAF into Manchester Airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airliner escorted by RAF into Manchester Airport

Old 6th Aug 2014, 17:56
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,277
Scudpilot wrote

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.
From the 2012 Gazelle incident.

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.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...ambled-over-uk
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 19:17
  #42 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 78
Posts: 16,756
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."
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 21:46
  #43 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
....and, of course, it wasn't 'close formation' was it? No intelligent pilot would do that.
BOAC is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 21:57
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Gatters
Posts: 441
I think putting the Typhoon so close to the airliner could cause more problems than resolving them.
OxfordGold is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 22:42
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: on my boat in the Caribbean
Posts: 160
Such as? Please do enlighten us.
fudpucker is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 23:05
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: FL410
Posts: 25
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.
Encorebaby is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 23:53
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 921
encorebaby

The fallout might be horrendous but the potential is worse.
IcePack is online now  
Old 6th Aug 2014, 23:56
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 57
Posts: 4,243
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.
500N is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 00:13
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 39
Posts: 285
"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
AreOut is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 00:56
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 0
The reason for the typhoon on your wingtip is surely obvious?

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!
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
Livesinafield is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 02:18
  #51 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 565
ExRR
I would like to see an answer as to why passengers on a plane with a suspected explosive device are not immediately evacuated.
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.
visibility3miles is online now  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 09:42
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandhurst, Berkshire
Age: 54
Posts: 229
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.
scudpilot is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 11:56
  #53 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
it definately wasn`t close formation
- colloquially known as "Same way same day" or more accurately 'shadowing'. i.e.in a position to observe as required but not close enough to be 'in danger'.
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 13:06
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by fireflybob View Post
Personally if I was a passenger and saw one of our Eurofighters on the wingtip I would feel quite reassured.
I can't imagine I would feel reassured at all. I would feel threatened, because it is a threat. The QRA aircraft are there to carry weapons and to point them at the suspect aircraft. They can either threaten to shoot, or shoot - at me in the suspect aircraft. So they are either threatening me, or actually attacking me. Not reassuring at all. Having someone point guns at you and be prepared to use them is not reassuring.

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.
nicolai is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 13:22
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 39
Posts: 285
"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
AreOut is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 16:12
  #56 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,581
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.
BOAC is offline  
Old 7th Aug 2014, 20:03
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
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?
ShotOne is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2014, 10:13
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,206
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?
Cheshire's expensive.
TURIN is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2014, 19:49
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 71
Posts: 47
If there had been the slightest hint, then I'd fully agree with the various points.
Never underestimate your enemy. The 9/11 hijackers didn't tip their hand about crashing into buildings even after they killed the crews. They assured the passengers they were returning to the airport (recorded on UA 93 when they keyed the ATC rather than the PA). It was only cell phone calls that informed those passengers that they were not following the prior hijack MO, prompting the passenger counter-attack.

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 20:22.
jmmilner is offline  
Old 8th Aug 2014, 20:57
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,772
@mickjoebill

cracking a light stick at night = covert?

lmao
Stuff it between the BLACKOUT blind and window.
mickjoebill is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.