BA108 intercepted on April 30'th
 

Heard that BA108 had been called again and again and again on 121,5 on april 30'th 2016, by multiple ACC and other aircraft.
In the end one could hear that an air force reported "BA108 you are being intercepted by *** air force".
Only then did BA108 come up on 121,5 and reported operations normal.

Yup, i was in the area and heard all the repeated calls on 121.5 by ATC and other aircraft. Then the response by 108 when intercepted.

I can empathise with having 121.5 turned down at times due to unnecessary chatter, but there are other tools available to remind us of FiR boundaries.

All ended well.

Heard it too on 121.5 taking place, whilst we were passing by at F390 eastbound. Same airspace. Heard him acknowledge the "other aircraft insight" and confirming ops normal and in contact now on 124..... with Budapest I believe.

Dunno why these ATC units don't have SELCAL on 121.5. FFS, its a free app:ugh:

121.5
 

The idea of monitoring 121.5 with a spare radio, whenever operation permits, is so that a transmission from anybody, anywhere at anytime is is heard. An aircraft at altitude over a remote area is in a unique position to relay a signal. Selcal would defeat the object and there should not be other traffic on this frequency.

Regrettably not uncommon for ATC to fail to transfer flight to next freq. Then, when pilot notices and calls, they are out of range and it then takes time to re-establish comms with current FIR.
Agree guarding 121.5 is a sensible habit.

Nineiron,

Actually, I am fully aware of that. Regrettably there is way too much chatter on the frequency, often interfering with proper communications on the primary frequency.

And don't even get me going about the UK and their Gdamned "practice pans". more often than not I find I have to turn 121.5 off because unlike others, I can only process 1 frequency at a time.

My point being this....."loss of comms" is hardly such an earth shattering event that it requires an intercept.

Caveat.....obviously I do monitor 121.5, as it is SOP. However, I have had to turn it down/off and occasionally found it that way some time later. Mea Culpa

If armed interceptors are sent to "investigate" airliners often enough, one day the holes in the cheese will so align as to produce a tragic result.

I suspect that something should be changed.

Incidentally, I flew on Easyjet recently and one of our party reported seeing "fighters" rather close to the aircraft. Flight details will be sent by PM on request by PM.

A British Airways flight was intercepted by fighter jets over Hungary after the passenger plane lost contact with air traffic controllers.
Hungarian authorities reportedly issued their highest alert after the Boeing 777 passed over its border unannounced on Saturday afternoon.
Two Hungarian Air Force Gripens were scrambled to identify the aircraft which was en route from Dubai to Heathrow.
According to air safety protocols, pilots must make contact with air traffic controllers on the ground when passing from one country's airspace to another.
The Gripens reportedly took off at 12.55pm before the BA flight made contact with ground control.
A BA spokesman said: "Communication was quickly restored with air traffic control and the flight landed normally at Heathrow."

If Nigel is not responding on 121.5 then he has probably turned the volume down and he, not SECAL, is defeating the object of tuning it. SELCAL would get his attention which is a good idea as a last resort if he is not responding. Most commercial aircraft are fitted with VHF and HF SELCAL, why not deploy every tool in the box to establish communication?

Coffee with no biscuits for Nigel. Plus a load of paperwork.

And in the UK soon the prospect of an unlimited fine.

CAA consultation

My experience is with military radios, but I assume civil radios also continuously monitor guard (in addition to the active frequency) unless guard is toggled off. Which does happen, because of clutter.

A simple hardware solution would be a 'guard-pause' function on future radios, which would turn guard monitoring off, or reduce its volume, for a set period (say, ten minutes) and then resume it.

Paraglider crossing the Boarder
 

Recently a young Alsacian paraglider was very proud to tell at the bar, he had flown from The Treh (Vosges in France) to Germany crossing the Boarder, where he landed and being searched by his older friends that he was in the Schengen Area !!! (Flight recorded). They seem to have a big Hole In rules learning... No fighter in the sky for interception that day

The civilian radios I've used don't monitor guard unless you dedicate a separate receiver to the task. Most of the planes I've flown in recent years have three VHF transceivers with one dedicated to VHF ACARS. There is also HF and SATCOM mixed in the selector panel. A lot of buttons with multiple opportunities to mess up.

Post 9-11 we really are more aware of the requirement to monitor guard in the U.S. domestic environment. It's always been a requirement on international flights as far as I know.

You have the 'guard police' who come up on the frequency to scold perceived violators of their radio discipline policy. 'You're on guard!' is their eternal cry, even when someone is legitimately trying to seek emergency assistance.

Every night over the central U.S. the guard police catch hapless FedEx crewmembers calling MEM ops on 121.5. Maybe it has something to do with their standard radio setup during preflight.

And, on occasion, you get a magnificent PA announcement on guard by a Skygod from a formerly bankrupt Once Great Airline (e.g. AA, DL, UA). :ok:

I've certainly been asked to try to contact an aircraft that missed a frequency change. And, most ACARS installations can sound a chime in the cockpit if the company sends a wakeup message.

Wouldn't BA 108 normally have CPDLC comms with the LHCC controllers prior to entering the airspace?

What a really useful, insightful and inspiring post.

Wondering about Hungarian air force procedures - do they actually have 24/7 coverage ? Given the size of the country and timing involved it would not be completely trivial to pull out this intercept.

I believe almost all European countries operate one form of QRA or another.

Dunno why all you airlines don't have selcal equipped aircraft, I mean Ryanair don't for example

Almost all European countries will be members of NATO, and thus integrated into NATO QRA procedures and command structures. That includes Hungary, which also shares a border with a country which experienced a shooting war as recently as 2014 and during which a number of aircraft were shot down (besides the infamous MH17 at least two MiG-29, one SU-24M, three SU-25, an Ilyushin Il-76, an Antonov An-26 and an An-30). With all that happening literally next door, one would expect the Hungarian air force to be on the ball.

Also Hungarocontrol describes itself as an "integrated" ANSP, in charge of both civilian and military traffic. I assume that means there isn't much delay in scrambling the fighters.

Moving on from the specific case of BA108 to the very relevant CAA Consultation referenced by Daysleeper, one para of that document caught my eye when I glanced through it when it came out......
Hmmm, I thought, that's a new approach to justice that opens up interesting possibilities; would a BA Captain on the top scale, huge pension all lined up, be fined a lot more than, say, an Easyjet Captain on the entry scale for Easyjet Captains, no pension lined up yet, for precisely the same offence?

I'm not responding to the consultation because it's not my business; but if I were regularly flying as PIC on flights where radio communication is a legal requirement I would have a very strong view on the CAA's proposals.

By the way, does anyone know what "designation areas" means, in the following extract?

A user on Flyertalk posted some pictures and a video of the intercept. See post #9 and #16.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1762968-fighters-scramble-meet-ba-aircraft.html

Probably a typo for "designated areas"?

For those who seem to think storm in a tea cup, was it worth it and all that, I`d say remember Helios 522. No excuses for turning the volume down or not keeping on guard freq.

Hungary is policing the airspace of Slovenia as well (as the latter does not have military jets). Ref. the lost comm: might be useful to have the phone number of your OCC accessible for ATC units. With a quick phone call and an ACARS message the scramble can be spared most of the times. Introduction of CPDLC will also decrease the risk.

No, unfortunately not - the second radio needs to be tuned to the frequency.

As far as the "guard police" go, in UK on 121.5 it's usually airline pilots getting it wrong, due to finger trouble when trying to call handling agents.

The other annoying ones are those calling up to request a "Practice Pan" in advance of the actual call. If they just listened out then made the actual call it would require two fewer calls! If it's inconvenient then London Centre would tell them so and they could desist until another time.

Having said all that, it's hardly rocket science, if 121.5 is deselected due to distraction, to remember to turn it on/up again. I manage to do it single pilot I monitor 121.5 even though I'm not actually required to do so in Class G, where I spend most of my airborne time.

It is interesting that everyone seems to be treating this lightly. Given a military system that is being continually challenged and the current terrorist alert state this intercept could have ended very badly. This is a defense/defence of countries from potential attack. For all anyone in the defense/defence agencies knew this was another United 93 over an hour transit into another sovereign country without calling them is not at all clever not even dilatory, this is outright hazarding your aircraft and extremely poor airmanship. I have been on the other side of the situation a few times luckily before 9/11 so the pressure was less but we still had extremely close incidents with fighters having to do visual idents on aircraft that had failed to clear their entrance into the FIR/UIR.

Imagine night poor VMC or even IMC the fighter pilots both flying armed aircraft and both on edge as this is definitely not an exercise, missiles perhaps already locked on to your aircraft. Extremely twitchy as they know this is possibly an airliner full of pax but being told maximum caution it may have been hijacked. How close are you to being headlines for several weeks? If that doesn't get you thinking then it should.

The best option in these cases would be to add the cost of the alert and fighter scramble to the route charges for that airline. I can assure you that one case of that eyewatering cost and none of you would forget to monitor FIR/UIR boundary crossings.

I understand the stupidity of pilots using guard as a chat frequency and the UK practice pan system ought, like the UHF guard, to have a parallel practice frequency rather than clutter 121.5. If you find non-emergency chatter on guard is interfering with monitoring it - do not just switch it off raise an MOR or make an ASRS report.

This could easily have become a case of the crew and pax of the aircraft in question not arriving home. But the fighter pilot and his entire chain of command would have had to live with the actions - think about it.

Wear headsets, follow the route progress on a bleeping chart and not just the magenta line. Its not brain surgery..................................
Come on guys!!

It was a screw up. From my experience (luckily not being on the receiving end of an intercept but occasionally in the past on the giving end) it is easy to do with multiple frequency changes, call aheads, box changes etc.

It's not brain surgery but it's what these guys/girls do every day, day in day out, year after year and one day they made a mistake. So shoot them.

:ugh:

Capot,

Don't think they are too interested in the opinion of pilots, given that the opening paragraph of the document is


" The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department."


Doubt that covers too many pilots.

I think a healthy suspicion of "too long too quiet" is as good a defence against this as anything, but, even in Europe there are lengthy silences in certain sectors at certain times. Totally agree Re SELCAL /CPDLC etc, Ryanair can probably be crossed off the list, but would imagine a BA777 has a few options ATC could have used to try & establish contact. If nothing else why don't they simply ask a proximate aircraft to call on it's 2nd box on the last frequency it was known to be monitoring ? air to air is assumedly going to "outrange" calls from the ground.

Are BA 777s three cabin? If so why not call Row 1A on the Sat Phone and ask them to pass a message to the flight deck via the i/c?

Simple way to contact crew, as has happened in the past, is to get the affected company to ACARS message or Telcom the pilots that agencies are trying to radio contact them. Either company aircraft in the area can alert their company that the offending aircraft is not responding to ATC, or the controlling agencies can landline call the company operations about the situation.

A similar event occurred with an EK crew who were given Final Warning letters and a financial penalty.

Most modern FMS/C's allow time markers or a fix range or radial circle to be put at any waypoint. Be professional and alert yourself at the FIR waypoint as well as good RT comms discipline by ALL in the air (listen out and no chatter on 121.5) and on the ground (handover before aircraft is out of reception range).

Don't Hungary and BA already have CPDLC? :confused:

I show a requirement on the chart to log on to LHCC 15 minutes prior to entering the Budapest FIR.

Yes they do. However with training and operating budgets drastically cut, HAF pilots usually hover around the minimum hours needed to retain currency, hence they jump at every opportunity to do some more flying. As such intercept flights do not count into the training budget, their frequency is somewhat higher than in other FIRs. I'm sure everyone involved was pretty sure it is just another loss of comms exercise, and a great opportunity to take up the birds for a spin.

I think you're being a bit over dramatic here. It's not Top Gun, air intercepts are well practised and well drilled. The jet will not be "locked on" ready to fire.

Firstly the interceptor is in a highly permissive environment, it has no need to defend itself and therefore no need to have constant lock. Secondly the aircraft will be not have the master arm switch on unless it is in the process of engaging. Finally the decision to bring down a civilian airliner is made most likely by the head of state, his deputy or defence minister, the "on edge" pilot will be a trained military officer capable of realising it's not an exercise and subsequently behave as such.

Too long too quiete. Before 9/11 we were coming north bound to UK when HF selcal from our company ops. "Please contact ATC". Now we looked at each other & transmitted no answer. But "a big but" we could still hear the controller a female voice & we were positive that we had not been called. We were monitoring guard as well. So no quiet period at all. Weird.
Anyway after trying another freq given to us on guard all was well.
I still don't know what occurred but believe it was a failure to hand us over to next freq in the same FIR. & somehow the frequency was receiving another station via ducting.
So mistake on our part maybe/proberbly, but talk about coincedance having two female controllers on the same freq but the transmitters miles & miles apart. As for no one coming up on guard I havn't a clue.
Anyway since then I was very carefull even getting a chuckle from a French controller after calling after parsing out of his FIR. "XXXX, xxx123, position!". Lack of handover actually happens a lot so guess some on here will also advocate shooting the controller.

There is a thread running in ATC Issues here discussing ways of contacting an aircraft other than 121.5.

CPDLC would be a great method if the message was available, aircraft would log on, crews were trained, however as in nearly all cases none of these happen let alone all three for it to work, it looks like CPDLC is just another system that most controllers will remember with a chuckle.

AirBubba - if you log onto Budapest 15 minutes prior to entry, how does the previous centre contact you using CPDLC? I ask as most of the sectors I control will be crossed by a B777 in less than 10 minutes. If they are already logged on to the next FIR before even entering the sector then doesn't that defeat the object in the first place?

Is this not more referring to what is involved cost-wise for each intercept as all are different. Firstly, how far do the fighters travel supersonic (ie burning lots of fuel)? How long do they stay airborne? If the decision is to instruct the aircraft to land somewhere that is not destination, the compensation to the aerodrome concerned and any disruption that ensues? The local police force that greet the aircraft? It's not simply getting some fighters airborne and getting an airliner to say hello and all is ok.

The CAA proposal includes a suggestion that 121.5 should be monitored at all times.

Most of the aircraft I fly are only fitted with two VHF boxes, so how are the crew supposed to get ATIS/VOLMET or talk to handling agents etc? Are owners going to have to fork out for a third unit?

Also, I note that they have magnanimously allowed that the pilot may not be prosecuted if the loss of comms was the fault of ATC. No mention of prosecuting the controller then? ;)