Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran

Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:05
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 1,003
Received 39 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Green-dot
At these SAM launchers, are the operators basing their information on radar data only or also observation of the outside surroundings? Just wondering, several aircraft departed that night, likely using the IKA PAROT SID's. SOP used by most airlines is having landing lights ON below 10.000 ft. within an airport terminal area for enhanced visibility to surrounding air traffic. Any outside observer looking from the launcher site almost head on towards the approaching Ukrainian airliner at 8.000 ft (on a standard SID), the aircraft would have been visible with its landing lights still ON below 10.000 ft.
Good point G-d and one I had thought about. It was CAVOK so lights would have been easily visible. Can't believe a bloke on a SAM vehicle hasn't got a pair of binos in his equipment.
The other consideration is that it would have been at 250 KIAS or less until 10,000' (not sure of transition Alt) - hardly a fast moving hostile coming in for it's run.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:13
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Auxtank
It was following an established SID (Parot 3G).
The PAROT 3G has the plane maintain runway course of 285 degrees for 17 nautical miles outbound from the IKA VOR. I don't think any of the plotted flights did that. It looks to me like the planes were probably flying the PAROT 2H with a right turn after takeoff to intercept the IKA 305 degree radial outbound to PAROT intersection.

Originally Posted by Auxtank
The other consideration is that it would have been at 250 KIAS or less until 10,000' (not sure of transition Alt) - hardly a fast moving hostile coming in for it's run.
You can find the transition altitude, 9000 feet, at the top of the SID chart. It's been a long time since I've flown out of Tehran but many places in the Middle East don't have the 250 knots below 10000 feet speed restriction, or, if they do, you can request 'high speed' and it will be waived.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:23
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 1,003
Received 39 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
The PAROT 3G has the plane maintain runway course of 285 degrees for 17 nautical miles outbound from the IKA VOR. I don't think any of the plotted flights did that. It looks to me like the planes were probably flying the PAROT 2H with a right turn after takeoff to intercept the IKA 305 degree radial outbound to PAROT intersection.
Yep, Airbubba - all the plots from the aircrafts seem to make the turn earlier than the Parot 3G inbound to D17.0 IKA (on the 316 outbound radial from RUS) but later than they would if on the Parot 2H.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:25
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 1,003
Received 39 Likes on 14 Posts
It would be interesting to hear the IFR clearance dialogue with Ground/ TWR/ if audio exists.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:31
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Somehow my original post regarding landing lights ON below 10.000' has been removed. Any assumed "cruise missile" in the area would certainly not have any such lights . . . . . .
Green-dot is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:36
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Auxtank
Good point G-d and one I had thought about. It was CAVOK so lights would have been easily visible. Can't believe a bloke on a SAM vehicle hasn't got a pair of binos in his equipment.
The other consideration is that it would have been at 250 KIAS or less until 10,000' (not sure of transition Alt) - hardly a fast moving hostile coming in for it's run.
Consider the conditions under which the AA missiles were launched. The Iranian ballistic missiles were fired on the Iraqi bases around 3AM local time. The people manning the Tor-M1 would be hunkered down inside the vehicle waiting for an American counterstrike at any moment, especially since they were in the vicinity (and probably guarding) a ballistic missile research centre. It was 6:18AM local when they fired on PS752. Any American response would come before daybreak (sunrise in Tehran is around 7:15AM right now). The Tor-M1 would have it's search radar on, which would be a massive beacon screaming out "blow me up!" to any SEAD aircraft.

PS752 was over an hour late taking off, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that they thought that perhaps an American fighter was mimicking an airliner by flying slow with its transponder on. It was on a course that would take it right over that ballistic missile facility, which would be a logical target after the Iranian missile strike.

With all of those contributing factors and the stress of knowing that they'd probably be a prime first target, I could see how someone would be scared enough to fire at that blip on the screen.
dave.rooney is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:37
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Auxtank
It was following an established SID (Parot 3G). Other earlier departing aircraft had followed very similar tracks.
So the question is; why didn't the missile system's IFF correctly interpret the ADB-S squawk as civilian as opposed to a potential hostile?
The squawk could be spoofed.
Richard W is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:39
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Uka Duka
Posts: 1,003
Received 39 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Green-dot
Somehow my original post regarding landing lights ON below 10.000' has been removed. Any assumed "cruise missile" in the area would certainly not have any such lights . . . . . .
Don't panic G-d, I quoted your post in full in my reply - it's the mods pruning down to keep the thread at a sensible level of posts. Kind of makes sense.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:45
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hereford
Age: 58
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I take it that GPS in the area is reliable and the ADS-B can be relied on, as I have been told that there are areas around Iran, just like places in the Baltic, where GPS can be spoofed / degraded?
konradb is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 18:49
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,614
Received 63 Likes on 21 Posts
Salute!

Looks like takwis, Mozella and gums have had posts deleted today since 0900 CST, and none had half of the hearsay, ethnic/cultural innuendo or state secret info many here have posted. There was also a post by a SAM operator, 7 years experience, related to the topic. Cannot find it now at 1355 CST/1955 UTC

Who knows, some pilot reading here might get a clue as to how to avoid being shot down by a missile on day or night.

Gums sends...
gums is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:13
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,186
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Question

Originally Posted by SASless
There was no collateral damage during the Baghdad Airport strike......none.

It was done in a manner so there would be no collateral damage.

If you wish to claim collateral damage for the shoot down of the airliner.....then you would have to point the finger at the Iranians as it was Iranian forces that launched the miissiles, ballistic missiles first then the SAM's.

The US Military did not respond to those attacks and certainly fired no weapons.

So....ya'll that want to talk collateral damage....how do you blame the USA when they fired no weapons inside Iran and no where near Tehran?

Come on guys....get real!
I remember an early report, stating that after the Iranian ballistic missile strikes. That at least 6 F-35s got airborne from their UAE base. So, where were they headed and on what mission? Maybe that was why the SAM defences were so jumpy!
Out Of Trim is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:23
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by konradb
I take it that GPS in the area is reliable and the ADS-B can be relied on, as I have been told that there are areas around Iran, just like places in the Baltic, where GPS can be spoofed / degraded?
I meant spoofed to lie about identity. For example, a drone might claim to be an airliner that should be in the vicinity. Therefore, one would need to check a claim to be an airliner, e.g. using position and velocity.

I've noticed that the IRGs' acceptance of responsibility included a statement that communications weren't functioning properly. That could be the critical breakdown in safeguards - it could even make the one hour delay in take-off the critical hole in the system.
Richard W is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:32
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tapping the Decca, wondering why it's not working.
Age: 75
Posts: 166
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gums
Salute!

Looks like takwis, Mozella and gums have had posts deleted today since 0900 CST, and none had half of the hearsay, ethnic/cultural innuendo or state secret info many here have posted. There was also a post by a SAM operator, 7 years experience, related to the topic. Cannot find it now at 1355 CST/1955 UTC
.
gums,

SAMXXV's post is #402 in this topic. direct link here:

Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran

'a
aerobelly is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:40
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 65
Posts: 7,328
Received 509 Likes on 317 Posts
Originally Posted by WillowRun 6-3
Not taking issue with premise that missile launch was accidental (not questioning the premise here, that is).
Also not going into particular elements of the many - and sometimes varied - subject areas AIB reports usually reach.

Instead this incident appears as one which justifies, as well as demands, a complete investigatory work-up and report, even though some key questions won't be addressed (as earlier posts observed).
If there is going to be a stronger push for realistic and still meaningful methods to address conflict zones much more effectively, having as full an Annex 13 process and resulting report very likely will be critically important.
Certain ICAO Member States could, quite predictably, raise objections (fake or not) about stronger CZ initiatives.
With a good, strong and complete Annex 13 process and report in one's briefcase, these cynical objectors could be told to pound sand -- though in the nicey-nice politesse of diplomats' lexicons, of course!
I broke up your wall of text and have a modest response to your response to me.
The investigation must be, as far as possible, decoupled from the ongoing political bruhaha. Not sure how successfully the states concerned will be able to manage that. Here's hoping.

Concur that the better the report, the better a tool to use for future initiatives. (Did not the AF 447 report lead to some training changes?)

Addressing conflict zones vis a vis ICAO and Annex 13: with any multinational agreement, the means of "enforcement" and "implementation" are subject to the desires of the various signatory states ... but it won't hurt to try again. I will caveat that with how nebulous "conflict zones" is as a term, and that any operator is going to have their own risk calculus and expectations. I don't think improvements to ICAO, such as they may be made, will ever change that. (MH17 case, IIRC, included a situation where some other airlines were not flying over that area due to the conflict/tensions present)

Those who fly comercially in the Mid East for the past two decades have to have some kind of risk assessment tool given how things flare up in that region with some frequency. The question to me, then, isn't so much the presence of a tool or a process, but more in how decisions get made within a given organization's culture.

And lastly, incomplete information is endemic to any risk assessment process. If we look at this case, where the selection of the ballistic missile strikes were chosen for "quiet time" (for a variety of sound reasons IMO) the amount of information offered up in the open, and in a timeline helpful to decision makers, may be shown to be impractical. Military operations in the modern / information age are beginning to have their 'information release' packages bundled with the operation itself; which means that an outsider (in an airline company for example) will at best have incomplete information (only what little the operators release) that is pre spun for political purposes.

The decisions makers in the risk office have a hell of a challenge to deal with. And for Captains on a given day, that challenge is at least an order of magnitude higher - the information they will have is subject to further filtering and/or incompleteness.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Jan 2020 at 19:53.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:45
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brasil
Age: 42
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CargoOne
I guess there is little to no value for civil aviation to continue this investigation, everyone just better save efforts and money for the next occasion. To save multinational investigation a year and a few million bucks I can draft the safety recommendations here:
1) commission recommends to avoid flight operations within active war risk areas in order to reduce probability of being shot down by air defence
How does your fantastic plan allow for people to leave active or near active warzones. Do you recommend that people drive or walk to neighbouring states in order to repatriate themselves?
JumpJumpJump is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 19:50
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by fireflybob
Does anyone know which other operators departed Tehran and flew this departure between the time when missiles were launched to US bases in Iraq and maybe an hour or two after the Ukrainian aircraft came to grief?
It appears that Lufthansa, Turkish, Aeroflot, Qatar, Iran Air and a couple of others operated out in those hours.

Here's a list of January 8 departures from IKA as listed on FlightAware. It does appear that the eastbound flights did follow roughly the same track. Times out are local Tehran time.

From the BBC:

Two Iraqi bases housing US and coalition troops were targeted, one at Al Asad and one in Irbil, at about 02:00 local time on Wednesday (22:30 GMT on Tuesday). It came just hours after the burial of Soleimani, who controlled Iran's proxy forces across the Middle East.

Last edited by Airbubba; 11th Jan 2020 at 20:02.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 20:05
  #457 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 695
Received 90 Likes on 46 Posts
liider

Why is the exterior mostly black? Pictures of Ukraine Airlines show a white exterior in the front half of the plane.
visibility3miles is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 20:25
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A report that the UK ambassador to Iran was arrested and held for several hours for organizing destructive protests against the downing of the Ukrainian 737. Was this really the ambassador or is there some faulty translation? Or more fake news?

From Iran's Tasim News via Google Translate:

British ambassador at Amir Kabir University arrested

The British ambassador to Tehran was detained for hours after being detained for organizing suspicious movements at Amir Kabir University and then released.

  • 1 January - 1:50
During a gathering today, a group of people were detained for hours in front of Amir Kabir University, the British ambassador to Tehran, who was in the midst of a rally to organize, instigate and direct some radical and destructive actions.

He was told about the protest after his arrest. The ambassador was released hours later but is said to be summoned and prosecuted tomorrow.

Informed sources told Tasnim that a shop in front of Amir Kabir University was the main site of the British ambassador's coordination.

End of message /


https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1...شد
Airbubba is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 20:33
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,307
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by visibility3miles
liider

Why is the exterior mostly black? Pictures of Ukraine Airlines show a white exterior in the front half of the plane.
That will be soot from the fire. Note the windscreen.
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2020, 20:48
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 997
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Seems to be true....

British ambassador Robert Macaire arrested
gearlever is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.