Intercept by RAF Typhoons and escort to STN
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf9_1414613189&comments=1
I've seen the Typhoon at a few airshows and always amazed by it's dexterity. Watching this though I wondered what the "normall" initial pitch angle is for a scramble - looks like 60+%.
Also wondering what altitude they would normally whizz from Lincs to Kent at?
Love the aircraft - you are some lucky people who get to fly it!
I've seen the Typhoon at a few airshows and always amazed by it's dexterity. Watching this though I wondered what the "normall" initial pitch angle is for a scramble - looks like 60+%.
Also wondering what altitude they would normally whizz from Lincs to Kent at?
Love the aircraft - you are some lucky people who get to fly it!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what point was the intercept made, does anyone know? The Flightradar track shows the Antonov trundling up to Heathrow at 18,000ft, then making a sharp right turn.
How could the pilots possibly have ended up that close to Heathrow without realising they'd missed a few conversations with ATC?
And what on earth would the Typhoons have done if it had looked like the An was planning something hostile? Shoot it down over Lambeth or Hounslow?
How could the pilots possibly have ended up that close to Heathrow without realising they'd missed a few conversations with ATC?
And what on earth would the Typhoons have done if it had looked like the An was planning something hostile? Shoot it down over Lambeth or Hounslow?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was privileged to listen to the whole thing "live" , I offered to help when I initially heard ATC on 121.5 failing to establish contact, but they said the aircraft they were trying to contact was close to Lydd, so well within the range of their transmitters (London)
It does indeed seem incredible that they could just blunder into the London TMA without contact, as if that were the normal way, I can only hope for them a total radio failure (unlikely as that may be ) as it is difficult to fathom how they could have imagined that everything was OK. If they were flying in the area reported, I think the chance to shoot them down (as threatened) must have been lost quite early in proceedings, as most of their route after coasting in was over populated/heavily populated areas.
Having spent some time flying in a Baltic (previously Soviet) country, I am open to believing that the mentality required for this to happen could well be present on the flight deck.
I guess, if it actually managed to get as far as Heathrow (as alleged here) serious questions will be asked in the house of "Her Majesties Govt" as, if something sinister was planned, that (with respect) would be a bit too late.
If you look at the following two links, you can see why (and who to blame) for this "edginess" from the R.A.F.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29823148
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29825890
It does indeed seem incredible that they could just blunder into the London TMA without contact, as if that were the normal way, I can only hope for them a total radio failure (unlikely as that may be ) as it is difficult to fathom how they could have imagined that everything was OK. If they were flying in the area reported, I think the chance to shoot them down (as threatened) must have been lost quite early in proceedings, as most of their route after coasting in was over populated/heavily populated areas.
Having spent some time flying in a Baltic (previously Soviet) country, I am open to believing that the mentality required for this to happen could well be present on the flight deck.
I guess, if it actually managed to get as far as Heathrow (as alleged here) serious questions will be asked in the house of "Her Majesties Govt" as, if something sinister was planned, that (with respect) would be a bit too late.
If you look at the following two links, you can see why (and who to blame) for this "edginess" from the R.A.F.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-29823148
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29825890
Last edited by captplaystation; 30th Oct 2014 at 02:03.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
A shame we don't have a Southern Q at RAF Wattisham anymore!
Fighter aircraft could have been alerted and on scene even earlier, and before the Target had reached Greater London.
Although they managed to get on scene pretty quickly, perhaps it would have been a little late with a higher performance aircraft than a mere Turboprop!
A lesson learnt perhaps?
. But, probably Not!
Fighter aircraft could have been alerted and on scene even earlier, and before the Target had reached Greater London.
Although they managed to get on scene pretty quickly, perhaps it would have been a little late with a higher performance aircraft than a mere Turboprop!
A lesson learnt perhaps?
. But, probably Not!
In a former life, flew the Typhoon sim at Farnborough on 24 July 2000.
Man, that thing can accelerate.
The test pilot (grey hair?) stood next to me as I carefully handled the throttles and said "you've just gone supersonic and broken a large number of windows in the South East..."
Man, that thing can accelerate.
The test pilot (grey hair?) stood next to me as I carefully handled the throttles and said "you've just gone supersonic and broken a large number of windows in the South East..."
At what point was the intercept made, does anyone know? The Flightradar track shows the Antonov trundling up to Heathrow at 18,000ft, then making a sharp right turn.
Think "join-the-dots", but with many of the dots missing ...
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole affair and others like it, baffle me.
From my limited experience with ATC (maintaining nav aids & comms in Saudi), I remember flight plans preceded a flight so the relevant FIR would be aware of what was coming, from where etc with approximate times planned for various reporting points. So there should be no surprises when aircraft appear. I agree it is bloody awkward when there is no communication with the aircraft. I once watched a Syrian Airlines flight from Damascus to Jeddah being forced to land at Tabuk as it was 1 minute late reporting entering Saudi airspace!
Meanwhile, London reported no comms with the aircraft on 121.5MHz, yet the RAF called him on that frequency. Nevertheless, once the Typhoons had caught up with him, presuming they established comms on that frequency, could they not then instruct the pilot to contact London on the correct frequency?
Finally, this business of threatening to shoot down aircraft that could be construed as posing a threat to urban area etc; the UK is not a vast area. So, imagine shooting down an aircraft approaching London after deciding it posed a threat to the city? "Oops! He has crashed in docklands". Job done as far as the terrorist is concerned. During the Olympics, the government posted anti-aircraft batteries near to the Olympic venues so they could shoot down aircraft posing a 9/11 type of threat. And where would they come down? Blow it up over Dartford and watch a couple of 5 ton engine lumps flying in a ballistic arc toward London anyway? (Shades of the Buccaneer!)
From my limited experience with ATC (maintaining nav aids & comms in Saudi), I remember flight plans preceded a flight so the relevant FIR would be aware of what was coming, from where etc with approximate times planned for various reporting points. So there should be no surprises when aircraft appear. I agree it is bloody awkward when there is no communication with the aircraft. I once watched a Syrian Airlines flight from Damascus to Jeddah being forced to land at Tabuk as it was 1 minute late reporting entering Saudi airspace!
Meanwhile, London reported no comms with the aircraft on 121.5MHz, yet the RAF called him on that frequency. Nevertheless, once the Typhoons had caught up with him, presuming they established comms on that frequency, could they not then instruct the pilot to contact London on the correct frequency?
Finally, this business of threatening to shoot down aircraft that could be construed as posing a threat to urban area etc; the UK is not a vast area. So, imagine shooting down an aircraft approaching London after deciding it posed a threat to the city? "Oops! He has crashed in docklands". Job done as far as the terrorist is concerned. During the Olympics, the government posted anti-aircraft batteries near to the Olympic venues so they could shoot down aircraft posing a 9/11 type of threat. And where would they come down? Blow it up over Dartford and watch a couple of 5 ton engine lumps flying in a ballistic arc toward London anyway? (Shades of the Buccaneer!)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The South
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The a/c was intercepted before it got to London. It was just making landfall.
There was a flight plan in the system, so the flight wasn't a surprise. If the previous controllers had lost comms with the a/c, obviously we are reliant on them informing us before it gets to our airspace. Occasionally, adjacent units will let the situation progress further than perhaps we would before saying anything. The a/c could well have reached the normal transfer of communications point without the sector being pre-noted there was a potential radio fail, or loss of comms. This obviously delays the QRA launch by a few minutes.
However, the pilot was intercepted well before overflying significant urban areas, and showed compliance in following orders.
There was a flight plan in the system, so the flight wasn't a surprise. If the previous controllers had lost comms with the a/c, obviously we are reliant on them informing us before it gets to our airspace. Occasionally, adjacent units will let the situation progress further than perhaps we would before saying anything. The a/c could well have reached the normal transfer of communications point without the sector being pre-noted there was a potential radio fail, or loss of comms. This obviously delays the QRA launch by a few minutes.
However, the pilot was intercepted well before overflying significant urban areas, and showed compliance in following orders.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London could not contact him on 121.5?
Often when I fly in on near UK airspace, 121.5 is turned down due Practice Pan, Practice Pan, Practice Pan.
A fighter outside my left cockpit window will change that, but by then it is too late.
Often when I fly in on near UK airspace, 121.5 is turned down due Practice Pan, Practice Pan, Practice Pan.
A fighter outside my left cockpit window will change that, but by then it is too late.
The warning on 121.5 is exactly the same as happens with any 'armed guard' challenge, the law requires the giving of a warning unless there is no time to do so. In this case there was time, and you will note the warning was issued on behalf of the Govt.
The flight plan will assist with identification of an aircraft provided the contact is close to the planned or approved route. What it will not tell you (in the absence of comms) is that all is well on board. And if you have identified an aircraft via the flight plan and then the track behaviour is no longer as expected, you have an aircraft that is potentially hostile until it is proved otherwise.
The decision to engage is clearly a tough one but it will not be taken in the cockpit for a scenario like this. Let us assume 'the system' has decided the aircraft is hostile and has hostile intent. If you do shoot it down over an urban area there is a good chance of casualties on the ground, but there is also a chance wreckage drops into roads, parks, gardens etc. If you let it proceed to its target, you have absolute certainty of a terrorist success. Therein lies the difference.
The flight plan will assist with identification of an aircraft provided the contact is close to the planned or approved route. What it will not tell you (in the absence of comms) is that all is well on board. And if you have identified an aircraft via the flight plan and then the track behaviour is no longer as expected, you have an aircraft that is potentially hostile until it is proved otherwise.
The decision to engage is clearly a tough one but it will not be taken in the cockpit for a scenario like this. Let us assume 'the system' has decided the aircraft is hostile and has hostile intent. If you do shoot it down over an urban area there is a good chance of casualties on the ground, but there is also a chance wreckage drops into roads, parks, gardens etc. If you let it proceed to its target, you have absolute certainty of a terrorist success. Therein lies the difference.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF base
We definitely need a number of RAF fighter jets/Typhoon positioned significantly closer to the area most at risk of a 9/11 style attack, we cannot take the risk of being on a hostile target too late, no way. In NORAM they were very late and we know exactly why.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be the point of that, c195?
ILS27, think through the threat scenario in detail and then say whether your proposal would make us any safer. In that scenario we need a team of hostiles ruthless and well-trained enough to: a) hijack an airliner by force b) do it so quickly that there's no chance, not even 5 seconds, for an RT distress call c) pilot and navigate aircraft to destination/target...All that, but NOT be able to make a few radio calls. Would any number of Typhoons even based at LHR make us safer?
ILS27, think through the threat scenario in detail and then say whether your proposal would make us any safer. In that scenario we need a team of hostiles ruthless and well-trained enough to: a) hijack an airliner by force b) do it so quickly that there's no chance, not even 5 seconds, for an RT distress call c) pilot and navigate aircraft to destination/target...All that, but NOT be able to make a few radio calls. Would any number of Typhoons even based at LHR make us safer?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that any additional number of fast jets based wherever is not going to make us considerably safer.
Unfortunately safety measures tend to be reactive, based on past experiences. The next "hostile" can not be expected to do exactly the same as previous ones. Instead of going through the considerable pain of hijacking, if I was a "hostile", I'd consider leasing one of the many inexpensive older a/c, preferrably without crew...if an AOC is a problem, then with crew, and take the a/c while crew is on night stop, file a flight plan, answer radio transmissions, and don't attract any attention. Any deviations from flight plan, or non-compliance with ATC should immediately be explained.
If i was to allocate a budget to prevent such things from happening, I'd prefer better intelligence, to stop "hostiles" at an earlier point, rather than more fast jets.
a) hijack an airliner by force b) do it so quickly that there's no chance, not even 5 seconds, for an RT distress call
If i was to allocate a budget to prevent such things from happening, I'd prefer better intelligence, to stop "hostiles" at an earlier point, rather than more fast jets.
Last edited by deptrai; 4th Nov 2014 at 03:22.
