US warns airliners flying over Gulf of 'misidentification'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US warns airliners flying over Gulf of 'misidentification'
This topic seems to have been picked up in some of the quality media. The following is an extract from Al Jazeera:-
"US diplomats warned commercial airliners flying over the wider Gulf of the risk of being "misidentified" amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
The warning relayed by US diplomatic posts from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) underlined the risks the current tensions pose to a region crucial to global air travel."
As a SLF who regularly flies the length of the gulf this is a worrying development.
"US diplomats warned commercial airliners flying over the wider Gulf of the risk of being "misidentified" amid heightened tensions between the United States and Iran.
The warning relayed by US diplomatic posts from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) underlined the risks the current tensions pose to a region crucial to global air travel."
As a SLF who regularly flies the length of the gulf this is a worrying development.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ilian-aircraft
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: On the Ground
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial aircraft flights should not operate in combat or potential combat zones. Flights should remain well outside the maximum range of missle threats in those zones. Since airlines don’t want their operations disrupted its almost inevitable we will see another tragedy. Most people would not walk in front of loaded weapons with operators on edge yet we will willing fly under the same conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well HOPEFULLY, the crew monitor 121.5, where any "unidentified" aircraft will be challenged by the Navy, heard it on a daily basis, usually, it was one of their own helicopters..but it does add to the daily routine having to listen out for these calls...
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the not-so-subtle threat is there, anyway. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial aircraft flights should not operate in combat or potential combat zones. Flights should remain well outside the maximum range of missle threats in those zones. Since airlines don’t want their operations disrupted its almost inevitable we will see another tragedy. Most people would not walk in front of loaded weapons with operators on edge yet we will willing fly under the same conditions.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowadays if you want to go somewhere, it's almost impossible to avoid some sort of tensionzone.
Wasn't one of the things to come out of the Iran Air shootdown that the US continually called the crew several times but used groundspeed in their "unknown aircraft" call, so they felt it was not directed at them, even if they were monitoring Guard?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Runcorn,Cheshire,England
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the main reason was the Americans were broadcasting on 243 (military guard HF)and not 121.5(civilian). Consequently, the Iranian civilian airliner wasn’t monitoring 253 and didn’t hear the calls.
The USS Vincennes made 10 attempts to contact IR655.
Seven of those attempts were on UHF (243.0 MHz), which the Iran Air couldn't receive as it didn't have UHF, and three were on VHF (121.5 MHz), which IR655 did receive but disregarded because it cited an unknown aircraft flying with a 50 kt speed difference (GS vs TAS) and failed to quote IR655's Mode A squawk, which would have unambiguously identified it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also said aircraft could experience interference with navigation instruments and communications jamming “with little to no warning”.
No nav, no comms, lots of weaponry on hair trigger, what could possibly go wrong...
I suspect the idea is that now they've issued the warning if anything gets shot down it won't be their fault.
Let's remind ourselves, that historically only 2 nations have shot down commercial airliners in peace time. One of them has now issued a warning, it seems quite clear where that potential danger would come from. And it's not Iran.
Seven of those attempts were on UHF (243.0 MHz), which the Iran Air couldn't receive as it didn't have UHF, and three were on VHF (121.5 MHz), which IR655 did receive but disregarded because it cited an unknown aircraft flying with a 50 kt speed difference (GS vs TAS) and failed to quote IR655's Mode A squawk, which would have unambiguously identified it.
The crew also stated they had no way of knowing it was a civilian airliner, despite it being in a civilian ait corridor, Amber 59. 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.
I hope nowadays someone on board has the web address for Flight Radar 24.