US warns airliners flying over Gulf of 'misidentification'
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveReidUK;
I somehow missed the point of your above post. BEagle, to illustrate the historic hubris of the USA, was describing his formation flight from "Some years ago ... " during which he approached the Red Sea in the vicinity of "Wejh (Al Wajh). BEagle then expressed his ire at the "US warning' airliners flying over the Gulf ... " Assuming (a very dangerous thing to do) that "the Gulf" refers to the Persian Gulf, then it seems to me that BEagle is discussing two separate bodies of water and two different time frames. I would appreciate clarification/comment from BEagle him/herself.
Cheers,
Grog
I somehow missed the point of your above post. BEagle, to illustrate the historic hubris of the USA, was describing his formation flight from "Some years ago ... " during which he approached the Red Sea in the vicinity of "Wejh (Al Wajh). BEagle then expressed his ire at the "US warning' airliners flying over the Gulf ... " Assuming (a very dangerous thing to do) that "the Gulf" refers to the Persian Gulf, then it seems to me that BEagle is discussing two separate bodies of water and two different time frames. I would appreciate clarification/comment from BEagle him/herself.
Cheers,
Grog
RTFP, mate! My point was simply that aircraft flying on international flight plans on international air routes do not have to seek confirmation from some USN boat floating about on seas thousands of miles away from America in order to continue with their lawful activity.
Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!
Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFP, mate! My point was simply that aircraft flying on international flight plans on international air routes do not have to seek confirmation from some USN boat floating about on seas thousands of miles away from America in order to continue with their lawful activity.
Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!
Whether the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Mediterranean or the Hyde Park Serpentine is of little consequence. The US has no legitimate right to 'warn airliners of misidentification'. If the USN is so incompetent that it cannot identify lawful air traffic in international airspace, then it should Foxtrot Oscar elsewhere!
Your foaming at the mouth is pretty sad. It smacks of "I am a has been, so I'll rant and rave."
@Airbubba: thanks for the actual NOTAM. Somebody posting something factual amidst all of this noise is refreshing to see.
@Garage Years: yes, thanks for showing the internet pedant the door.
You will be shocked to learn that Russian naval units have been prowling just outside the 12 mile limit of the continental U.S. for decades.
See: https://freebeacon.com/national-secu...sian-spy-ship/
I like the part about where they figured out some of the ship's movements and port calls from Facebook posts.
See: https://freebeacon.com/national-secu...sian-spy-ship/
I like the part about where they figured out some of the ship's movements and port calls from Facebook posts.
The present spy ship is our fourth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Marjata
Per
Lonewolf 50,
Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!
No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!
Bill
Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!
No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!
Bill
Lonewolf 50,
Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!
No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!
Bill
Cannot disagree with your comments. However, many years ago when the Vincennes incident occured I was employed by a country in the ME and, about that time, was flying a a maritime patrol sortie in the Gulf.
Part of the deal was to maintain a listening watch on 243.0. After about 30 minutes of hearing a constant (and somewhat threatening) challenge to civilian aircraft by an USN vessel, I queried with him if he realised that he was positioned below the intersection of two long established airways and that civilian aircraft (by and large) did not possess UHF. Long pause - answer in the negative - and some while later the challenge was being repeated about 60 nms further south !!
No-one rules the world, let us be sensible!
Bill
I ran into something similar during a FLEETEX a few years after the Vincennes incident, other side of the world, where the op area chosen for the major exercise was near an intersection of "high altitude com air traffice lanes," if you don't mind me calling it that. A few of the people in the AAW world understood the issue, but some others did not. It all resulted in semi-inane goings on ... fish heads will be fish heads. (We call them black shoes in the USN, but I believe a few of our NATO partners refer to the same sea going sorts as fish heads, so I used the NATO slang).The problem goes away if you have a CAP dedicated to clearing (this airspace volume) but when you don't ... or when the Admiral is paranoid about looking bad if the local Bear/Badger visitor gets too close with out an escort ... shennanigans aplenty.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 82
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting old now, but having spent a bit of time flying here & there,
I'm inclined to agree with Beagle. ie just let the United States of America
comply with their international agreements, and please don't try to kill me.
I'm inclined to agree with Beagle. ie just let the United States of America
comply with their international agreements, and please don't try to kill me.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba;
Thanks for showing us the actual NOTAM. The NOTAM was issued by the United States FAA and was directed to those for whom that agency has some responsibilities. The NOTAM was not meant for foreign entities, but was apparently shared through diplomatic channels just as a "heads up" notice. If nothing else, the NOTAM's reminder of possible GPS spoofing/jamming should be welcome by those transiting the region. I find it interesting how quickly an attempt to convey the gravity of heightened tensions in the M.E. has devolved into a USA bashing session.
Cheers,
Grog
Thanks for showing us the actual NOTAM. The NOTAM was issued by the United States FAA and was directed to those for whom that agency has some responsibilities. The NOTAM was not meant for foreign entities, but was apparently shared through diplomatic channels just as a "heads up" notice. If nothing else, the NOTAM's reminder of possible GPS spoofing/jamming should be welcome by those transiting the region. I find it interesting how quickly an attempt to convey the gravity of heightened tensions in the M.E. has devolved into a USA bashing session.
Cheers,
Grog
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with BEagle, those who live in grey boats are notorious for firing at anything they deem a threat. One is reminded of the Falklands conflict where HMS Bristol reported firing sea darts at a 'high flying Lear Jet' which was actually a British AAR formation heading for the Falklands, all squawking correctly... all notified.. but still they fired.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s
I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)
With respect, skepticism arising from memories of recent history doesn't seem, to me, to constitute "bashing." And it's also appropriate to recognize that our US government has been actively and openly acting to raise those regional tensions.
I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.
I'm not aware of any actual evidence that suggests increased risk to airliners in the ME. What we are seeing and hearing are "warnings" based upon claims by a far-from-neutral party.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance is Bliss
Cheers,
Grog
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s
I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)
I think some caution is in order, after all our glorious Navy managed to hit an oil tanker with one of their stealth high tech destroyers with the best radar technology in the world. To be fair, oil tankers are pretty small targets to detect on radar, unlike islands and continents and whatnot. The tanker was broadcasting its position on AIS and the destroyer wasn't (the navy and coast guard don't seem to believe that we need to know where they are, but man they get bent out of shape if they don't know where you are.)
Cheers,
Grog
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I expect that even the most skeptical aviators will be careful to make sure that any nervous or possibly-hostile inquiries in that part of the world are responded to with unmistakable ID information. Indeed, those who are most skeptical may be most aware of the importance of doing just that, remembering that an inquirer might be one of those far-from-neutral parties.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see Beagle hasn’t changed, always right on the spot with an anti yank post. He never fails, if he doesn’t have a story, one of the “lads” told him about a time...
In past years he loved to pass the CVN vs lighthouse story as gospel.
In past years he loved to pass the CVN vs lighthouse story as gospel.