US warns airliners flying over Gulf of 'misidentification'
Now in every US warship at the time the quartermaster carried the current Official Airline Guide (OAG), principally to arrange tickets for crew members. The flights from Bandar Abbas to Dubal were straightforwardly listed in there. So the information of the flight time and route of the aircraft was all there on board their ship. Just nobody had thought to look.
The Vincennes did indeed have a flight schedule showing departures from Bandar Abbas, but the US crew failed to take into account the difference between Iranian local time and the time zone that the ship was using. This, combined with a 27 minute delay to IR655's departure, led to the incorrect conclusion that no commercial flight could be expected to be over the area at the time in question.
Well I hope at this stage of the 21st century we are not still in part relying on schedule regularity, time tables and knowledge of time zone changes to differentiate between fried and foe..if we are then we are in for a world of hurt..
I suppose I could ask what has happened to all the fancy ESM and other kit and capabilities that have been around for decades .....but I know for good reasons we won't get answer...
I suppose I could ask what has happened to all the fancy ESM and other kit and capabilities that have been around for decades .....but I know for good reasons we won't get answer...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
243 Mhz is the UHF Guard frequency. Airlines don’t normally carry UHF equipment.
It's worse than that.
The Vincennes did indeed have a flight schedule showing departures from Bandar Abbas, but the US crew failed to take into account the difference between Iranian local time and the time zone that the ship was using. This, combined with a 27 minute delay to IR655's departure, led to the incorrect conclusion that no commercial flight could be expected to be over the area at the time in question.
The Vincennes did indeed have a flight schedule showing departures from Bandar Abbas, but the US crew failed to take into account the difference between Iranian local time and the time zone that the ship was using. This, combined with a 27 minute delay to IR655's departure, led to the incorrect conclusion that no commercial flight could be expected to be over the area at the time in question.
As I understand it the flight was spot on. The 27 minutes was the difference between gate closed (scheduled departure) and liftoff from the runway (ATC recorded time). Pretty normal.
It was the combination of the overall delay and the failure to account for the 30 minute time difference that led the Vincennes to conclude that IR655 would have been in the area an hour previously.
Talk about schedules and on time departures doesn’t matter anymore, a quick look at flight radar reveals the Persian Gulf is chock full of air traffic 24hrs a day. A lot of it originating in Iranian airspace and heading south.
Anyone shooting off missiles from ships in the Gulf isn’t going to have the excuse of not knowing there’s plenty of airliners in that airspace.
Anyone shooting off missiles from ships in the Gulf isn’t going to have the excuse of not knowing there’s plenty of airliners in that airspace.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bali H'ai
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shooting down Civilian Aircraft in peacetime
I am aware of 3 aircraft shot down in peacetime, Korean 007, Iranian 655 and Malaysian 17.
An earlier poster has stated that just 2 aggresors were involved.
I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.
An earlier poster has stated that just 2 aggresors were involved.
I deduce from that Malaysian 17 was shot down by the Russians.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe. That was the conclusion of an extremely-politicized investigation. Whoever may have been responsible for the shootdown itself, it certainly wasn't Russia that vectored the flight over the combat zone.
Frankly, I don't see how either warnings about these sorts of risks or procedures for avoiding them can be left in the hands of belligerents, who will inevitably have ulterior motives and, depressingly often, are willing to use innocents as pawns as they pursue their goals. The UN and the trans-national regulators need to step up.
Frankly, I don't see how either warnings about these sorts of risks or procedures for avoiding them can be left in the hands of belligerents, who will inevitably have ulterior motives and, depressingly often, are willing to use innocents as pawns as they pursue their goals. The UN and the trans-national regulators need to step up.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 70
Posts: 991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Be lucky
David
Astonishingly the same aircraft was shot down in 1938 then again in 1940.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I recall a Korean B.707 being intercepted by fighters and force landed some time in I think the early 70’s as well?
Meanwhile, referring back to the Vincennes fiasco; All this talk of calling or not on VHF or UHF Emergency frequencies is all very well but what was wrong with the US Forces talking to the relevant FIR people and asking "Do you have anything inbound from Iran?"
I remember that. Wasn't it on a polar route and was forced to land on a frozen lake in the Russian Arctic?
Meanwhile, referring back to the Vincennes fiasco; All this talk of calling or not on VHF or UHF Emergency frequencies is all very well but what was wrong with the US Forces talking to the relevant FIR people and asking "Do you have anything inbound from Iran?"
Meanwhile, referring back to the Vincennes fiasco; All this talk of calling or not on VHF or UHF Emergency frequencies is all very well but what was wrong with the US Forces talking to the relevant FIR people and asking "Do you have anything inbound from Iran?"