Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore
Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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?
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?
____
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET
Join the airdisaster Discord - https://discord.gg/A59Vdw73ET
-
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:19 am
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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.
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.
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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
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
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
I keep thinking of vaginas.I'd appreciate the thoughts of most of you relating to this phenomena.
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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?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.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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.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?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.
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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.
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.
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Could not have been said better!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
LOL100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraftno such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Notyou still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
When Al Qaeda get their own Air Force with a fleet of interceptors this could indeed be an issue.
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Sickie is correct for once!!!
LOL100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraftno such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Notyou still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
I would rather the "bad guys" not know what they should be trying to work around, but that's just me.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.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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!!!
LOL100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraftno such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Notyou still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
I think you've cleverly missed the point.I would rather the "bad guys" not know what they should be trying to work around, but that's just me.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.
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
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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.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.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
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 amateursI 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.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.
Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
What I have or haven't learned is, thankfully, not for you to know or decide.Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Meant to say you haven't changed much.What I have or haven't learned is, thankfully, not for you to know or decide.Gee, you haven't learnt much in the past 10 years
Good to chat to you again.
Tony
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
And to you as well. So, did you dodge that bullet or what?Good to chat to you again.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:21 pm
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Yup, just about, but got hit by another one. Holes have healed up and heading for ex-Mrs Foss No3.And to you as well. So, did you dodge that bullet or what?Good to chat to you again.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4395
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Persistence can be healthy.Yup, just about, but got hit by another one. Holes have healed up and heading for ex-Mrs Foss No3.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: Fighter jets "escorting" "at-risk" aircraft
Another lesson for the Terrorist's highschool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lEoc_1ZkfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... lEoc_1ZkfA
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 5 guests