Korean 777 interception and diversion
Thread Starter
Korean 777 interception and diversion
Reports of KAL 917 to Zurich being escorted into Stuttgart after losing comms last night. Apparently the sonic booms from the interceptors generated hundreds of reports to the police. The 777 is said to have performed an interesting circuit flying low in a northerly direction over the middle of the airport before turning downwind and landing to the east. This was then followed by the passengers camping out in the airport overnight. Anyone know any more?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: XFW, Germany
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below the approach per FR24 - all with the Eurofighters along them (besides actual touchdown). Comms was lost in one way only (917 could transmit but not receive).
German/local press on it: Abfangjäger ?begleiten? Passagierflugzeug: Das bedeutete der laute Knall über Stuttgart - Stuttgart - Stuttgarter Zeitung
German/local press on it: Abfangjäger ?begleiten? Passagierflugzeug: Das bedeutete der laute Knall über Stuttgart - Stuttgart - Stuttgarter Zeitung
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if the strong reaction to this NORDO followed a 7600 squawk.
Do they teach you to reboot electronic equipment that has stopped working to get it back operational, i.e. is that part of the formal procedures?
Do they teach you to reboot electronic equipment that has stopped working to get it back operational, i.e. is that part of the formal procedures?
Assume that every captain has done that more than once in his career. However hard to believe that with all the redundancy the crew could not establish any communication with ATC at all. Will be interesting what the BFU report comes up with. The original destination Zürich is the same distance as Stuttgart, so to avoid camping out in Stuttgart you would expect, that they go through some length of in air trouble shooting.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Jerusalem Israel
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naive question: Why shouldn't a NORDO fly out their clearance and land, at ZRH? That's what I was taught to do and have taught students as standard IFR lost comms procedure. They must have offered or volunteered to land at Stuttgart, a quieter place.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: XFW, Germany
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lot of info - in comments fwiw - now on AvH Incident: Korean B773 near Berlin on Jul 15th 2017, loss of communication
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting view from this SLF type. Much ado about not much. reading linked AvH comments by several more less informed re NATO, violation of swiss airspace, etc seems to make even more doodoo . With the heightend tensions, etc, IMHO the old land at the planned airport in case of nordo probably no longer applies. To avoid possible baddies or confusion, the presence of a few fighter aircraft makes the desired /required flight path very clear including for sure avoiding other aircraft in a busy terminal area in a major population center. 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tendency is to say lightly - TOO much comotion for a simple NORDO case. Too little on facts so far published. But did ATC try to find out wether or not KAL 917 could at least receive messages on 121,5 by ordering course deviations ?? Contrary statements so far about the remaining capability - some state no transmissions and other no receiving?? I tend to believe it was either transmitting or total failure!!
In good old pre 9/11 days that would have been a simple case of observation and follow up to the place of destination and a landing accordimg published procedures. However, that day in September 2001 has changed the"rules of the game" and now a days it is even more important to stick to the old rule : Better be safe than Sorry !! Therefore and because of the differences in now a days threats, the scrambled fighters might appear to be severe inconvenient - but it´s safe for public consciense !!
In good old pre 9/11 days that would have been a simple case of observation and follow up to the place of destination and a landing accordimg published procedures. However, that day in September 2001 has changed the"rules of the game" and now a days it is even more important to stick to the old rule : Better be safe than Sorry !! Therefore and because of the differences in now a days threats, the scrambled fighters might appear to be severe inconvenient - but it´s safe for public consciense !!
Last edited by Annex14; 16th Jul 2017 at 20:43. Reason: missing words
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd really like to hear from someone in the ATC business regarding how they are instructed to handle 7600 squawks. If not classified, it might be instructional.
I suspect that once you move away from your assigned squawk, their procedures now mandate a strong response since they cannot ascertain whether or not there is interference with the flight crew.
I suspect that once you move away from your assigned squawk, their procedures now mandate a strong response since they cannot ascertain whether or not there is interference with the flight crew.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a similar problem twice in a 777, but in both cases I could partially receive.
Once into dubai and once thankfully on the ground prior to taxi in Beijing.
In both cases it was the comms box ,or whatever its called in the EEB , in the Dubai incident the aircraft was on the ground for nearly 8 hrs.
Once into dubai and once thankfully on the ground prior to taxi in Beijing.
In both cases it was the comms box ,or whatever its called in the EEB , in the Dubai incident the aircraft was on the ground for nearly 8 hrs.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comms was lost in one way only (917 could transmit but not receive).
What happened to "transmitting blind" procedures? That way they could inform ATC they were continuing to destination. That is, of course, if they had diagnosed the problem as a receiver only one. How many radios does a B773 have? Surely 3 VHF and what about Sat phones, HF etc.
In answer to a previous question: I have rebooted the CB on a non-working VHF radio box and it did function again.
What happened to "transmitting blind" procedures? That way they could inform ATC they were continuing to destination. That is, of course, if they had diagnosed the problem as a receiver only one. How many radios does a B773 have? Surely 3 VHF and what about Sat phones, HF etc.
In answer to a previous question: I have rebooted the CB on a non-working VHF radio box and it did function again.
@RAT 5... See first quote. Pretty much everyone and their grandmothers was trying to be oh so helpful in relaying a frequency to Korean, to the point that 121,5 was blocked for extended periods. It started with someone offering Radar to attempt to relay, all well and good. But then people started chiming in on their own, relaying incorrect frequencies, stepping on each others transmissions and being generally useless...
And apparently none of them was listening for replies to their helpful transmissions as I heard Korean Air 917 transmit their intentions several times ("Korean Air 917, if anyone receives please respond. We are heading/landing Delta Kilo Bravo" where DKB is a VOR near Stuttgart I believe?).
I opted to relay that message to the frequency that they wanted Korean on, no idea if it was helpful but it seemed more sensible than falling over others trying to relay a frequency to an aircraft that quite obviously has radio issues and was not receiving. One friendly Speedbird was even so thoughtful to spell out the frequency one number per two seconds, therefore blocking 121,5 for about 15-20 seconds.
I'd hope everyone that was up in the air over Germany that night will take a bit of a look at their radio discipline... Maybe keep the frequency clear and don't get involved unless requested or offer your assistance before spamming 121,5.
And apparently none of them was listening for replies to their helpful transmissions as I heard Korean Air 917 transmit their intentions several times ("Korean Air 917, if anyone receives please respond. We are heading/landing Delta Kilo Bravo" where DKB is a VOR near Stuttgart I believe?).
I opted to relay that message to the frequency that they wanted Korean on, no idea if it was helpful but it seemed more sensible than falling over others trying to relay a frequency to an aircraft that quite obviously has radio issues and was not receiving. One friendly Speedbird was even so thoughtful to spell out the frequency one number per two seconds, therefore blocking 121,5 for about 15-20 seconds.
I'd hope everyone that was up in the air over Germany that night will take a bit of a look at their radio discipline... Maybe keep the frequency clear and don't get involved unless requested or offer your assistance before spamming 121,5.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Discipline
Intrance - Very well said, in such a case radio discipline has to be the primary attempt to keep control on the situation.
I have to correct myself in my earlier post as far as the failure mode is involved. Transmit only is quite another case.
However the Rules and Regulations of ICAO, Eurocontrol and DFS (German ATC) and the applicable procedures are all layed down in papers and well known to the controllers.
It might be interesting to find out who is responsible for the scramble of the fighters and that intercept of an civil aircraft, that clearly indicated it´s intention to proceed along it´s flightplan inbound to Zurich. An intention in accordance to the STANDARD Radio failure procedure.
I have to correct myself in my earlier post as far as the failure mode is involved. Transmit only is quite another case.
However the Rules and Regulations of ICAO, Eurocontrol and DFS (German ATC) and the applicable procedures are all layed down in papers and well known to the controllers.
It might be interesting to find out who is responsible for the scramble of the fighters and that intercept of an civil aircraft, that clearly indicated it´s intention to proceed along it´s flightplan inbound to Zurich. An intention in accordance to the STANDARD Radio failure procedure.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of idiot questions from a bug smasher:
Presumably during daylight, the crew could communicate with the interceptors via hand signals - what would be the protocol for a night flight?
Does the onboard wifi use the same 'aerial' as the comms? If not, could/would they try to communicate using it?
Presumably during daylight, the crew could communicate with the interceptors via hand signals - what would be the protocol for a night flight?
Does the onboard wifi use the same 'aerial' as the comms? If not, could/would they try to communicate using it?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Spot
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could have been avoided if the 777 crew carried one of these, and they are likely made in Korea. 
Standing by for comments about radio propagation, antenna efficiency, etc.
Standing by for comments about radio propagation, antenna efficiency, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd really like to hear from someone in the ATC business regarding how they are instructed to handle 7600 squawks. If not classified, it might be instructional.
I suspect that once you move away from your assigned squawk, their procedures now mandate a strong response since they cannot ascertain whether or not there is interference with the flight crew.
I suspect that once you move away from your assigned squawk, their procedures now mandate a strong response since they cannot ascertain whether or not there is interference with the flight crew.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The BaoFeng BF-F8HP doesn't transmit or receive on the VHF or UHF airbands so it might not be much help. I believe it is made in China, I'm not sure.
I have tried to carry a handheld airband transceiver internationally in the past but the customs folks always want to confiscate it at places like DXB, BOM, SIN, ICN and PVG since it may require a local license or even be illegal in some countries. After talking my way out of trouble a couple of times, I quit carrying the radio.
I have tried to carry a handheld airband transceiver internationally in the past but the customs folks always want to confiscate it at places like DXB, BOM, SIN, ICN and PVG since it may require a local license or even be illegal in some countries. After talking my way out of trouble a couple of times, I quit carrying the radio.