Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft

[monchavo]

I'd appreciate the thoughts of most of you relating to this phenomena. Today's "incident" involving a PIA flight to LHR which was diverted to STN after a pair of passengers apparently became unruly. They have been arrested for "endangering an aircraft".

I'd appreciate a précis of the thinking behind why fighter jets are sent to escort civilian aircraft in similar events.

I assume that it's simply to get a live and up to date summary of the situation by being "eyes in the sky" should the plane do something unusual (e.g crash) or is there some other reason ? It wouldn't appear to protect folk on the ground, nor can the military aircraft really "do" anything - or can they? (I'm trying to think of a way that fighter jet could materially alter the path or somehow reduce the impact of a possible catastrophic event). The analogy of a police car "tipping" or trying to spin a chasing car just doesn't seem comfortable.

Or is it really just a "we've got these tools we're going to use them" response to September 11th - a show of force, but practically of little material use?

[Dummy Pilot]

The post 9-11 mantra has been that we will never allow a commercial aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. With that in mind, whenever authorities believe that the plane has been commandeered (e.g. the plane is no longer responding to or following ATC instructions or it is deemed that the crew is no longer in command of the plane) the option exists to down the plane using military weapons. While that would mean the deaths of passengers and likely some bystanders on the ground, it may be a preferable option to allowing the plane to be flown into a high value target in London where the death toll would be considerably higher.

In this case, the PIA plane apparently had a disturbance and then failed to respond to repeated attempts at inter-company comms. Whether somebody wouldn have actually given the order to fire or not will remain a mystery since they eventually re-established that the crew was indeed still in control of the flight deck, but those fighter jets aren't launched simply to watch.

[J]

It sounds like the precaution was warranted:

Typhoon jets were scrambled from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire to escort the Boeing 777 with 347 passengers on board to Stansted after the pilot raised the alarm.

According to senior defence sources the men, British nationals aged 30 and 41, claimed they had a bomb.

They were arrested on suspicion of endangering an aircraft by armed police who boarded the plane, flight PK 709, which had been diverted to Stansted about 10 minutes before it was due to land at Manchester.

“Because they had been asked not to do that they got into a bit of an argument with the crew and made a few threats," she told Sky News.

Another passenger on the flight, Mr Munsif, added: "We were half an our from Manchester announced he was taking the plane down. We landed safely.

"He said he had some kind of threat from someone on the plane.

"Three to four people boarded and two men were removed from the plane. They were arrested and taken away in handcuffs."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1007968 ... ckpit.html

[Sickbag]

I'd appreciate the thoughts of most of you relating to this phenomena.

I keep thinking of vaginas.

[flyboy2548m]

The post 9-11 mantra has been that we will never allow a commercial aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. With that in mind, whenever authorities believe that the plane has been commandeered (e.g. the plane is no longer responding to or following ATC instructions or it is deemed that the crew is no longer in command of the plane) the option exists to down the plane using military weapons. While that would mean the deaths of passengers and likely some bystanders on the ground, it may be a preferable option to allowing the plane to be flown into a high value target in London where the death toll would be considerably higher.

In this case, the PIA plane apparently had a disturbance and then failed to respond to repeated attempts at inter-company comms. Whether somebody wouldn have actually given the order to fire or not will remain a mystery since they eventually re-established that the crew was indeed still in control of the flight deck, but those fighter jets aren't launched simply to watch.

DP, what's DL's stance on crewmembers discussing security procedures on an internet forum? Moreover, what, in your opinion, would the common sense stance in this case be?

[Chris Foss]

The post 9-11 mantra has been that we will never allow a commercial aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. With that in mind, whenever authorities believe that the plane has been commandeered (e.g. the plane is no longer responding to or following ATC instructions or it is deemed that the crew is no longer in command of the plane) the option exists to down the plane using military weapons. While that would mean the deaths of passengers and likely some bystanders on the ground, it may be a preferable option to allowing the plane to be flown into a high value target in London where the death toll would be considerably higher.

In this case, the PIA plane apparently had a disturbance and then failed to respond to repeated attempts at inter-company comms. Whether somebody wouldn have actually given the order to fire or not will remain a mystery since they eventually re-established that the crew was indeed still in control of the flight deck, but those fighter jets aren't launched simply to watch.

DP, what's DL's stance on crewmembers discussing security procedures on an internet forum? Moreover, what, in your opinion, would the common sense stance in this case be?

What is the point in having preventative security measures when the bad guys don't know about it. In this case I think DP may be promoting the essence of the security measure as a prevention rather than a consequence that could be evaded.

[Ed]

There is a difference between discussing general security terms and specifics.

Specific details about security measures and counter-measures should never be discussed, as they are part of the design basis threat assessment.

General information such as "Our airline has security measures in place...." etc can act as a deterrence measure.

Ed

p.s. FB: got your message; I was away. maybe next time.

[GlennAB1]

There is a difference between discussing general security terms and specifics.

Specific details about security measures and counter-measures should never be discussed, as they are part of the design basis threat assessment.

General information such as "Our airline has security measures in place...." etc can act as a deterrence measure.

Ed

Could not have been said better!

[Sickbag]

When Al Qaeda get their own Air Force with a fleet of interceptors this could indeed be an issue.

[GlennAB1]

Sickie is correct for once!!!

[flyboy2548m]

What is the point in having preventative security measures when the bad guys don't know about it. In this case I think DP may be promoting the essence of the security measure as a prevention rather than a consequence that could be evaded.

I would rather the "bad guys" not know what they should be trying to work around, but that's just me.

[GlennAB1]

You don't think it's a great deterrent just to let them know they might face armed resistance if they ever try another 911. Bring on the box cutters, we got hand guns!!!

[Chris Foss]

What is the point in having preventative security measures when the bad guys don't know about it. In this case I think DP may be promoting the essence of the security measure as a prevention rather than a consequence that could be evaded.

I would rather the "bad guys" not know what they should be trying to work around, but that's just me.

I think you've cleverly missed the point.

The reason they have big signs saying "Beware, guard dogs on patrol" is so that bad guys don't even try to get in rather than have a big pile of chewed up bad guys to deal with.

[flyboy2548m]

I think you've cleverly missed the point.

The reason they have big signs saying "Beware, guard dogs on patrol" is so that bad guys don't even try to get in rather than have a big pile of chewed up bad guys to deal with.

I think it's you who missed the point. I'd rather the bad guy be bringing bacon to distract the dog that may or may not exist while the real measure is something else entirely. Something the bad guy is not suspecting or expecting.

[Chris Foss]

I think you've cleverly missed the point.

The reason they have big signs saying "Beware, guard dogs on patrol" is so that bad guys don't even try to get in rather than have a big pile of chewed up bad guys to deal with.

I think it's you who missed the point. I'd rather the bad guy be bringing bacon to distract the dog that may or may not exist while the real measure is something else entirely. Something the bad guy is not suspecting or expecting.

Um, you're talking about measures to catch the pros, which do exist and of course are not to be discussed. Deterrants are usually for the wannabe amateurs

Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years

[flyboy2548m]

Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years

What I have or haven't learned is, thankfully, not for you to know or decide.

[Chris Foss]

Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years

What I have or haven't learned is, thankfully, not for you to know or decide.

Meant to say you haven't changed much.

Good to chat to you again.

Tony

[flyboy2548m]

Good to chat to you again.

And to you as well. So, did you dodge that bullet or what?

[Chris Foss]

Good to chat to you again.

And to you as well. So, did you dodge that bullet or what?

Yup, just about, but got hit by another one. Holes have healed up and heading for ex-Mrs Foss No3.

[flyboy2548m]

Yup, just about, but got hit by another one. Holes have healed up and heading for ex-Mrs Foss No3.

Persistence can be healthy.

[Gabriel]

Another lesson for the Terrorist's highschool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lEoc_1ZkfA