Pilot feared being shot down by military

[Slats7]

Pilot feared being shot down by military | Travel News | News.com.au

PILOTS of a UK low-budget airline feared they would be shot down by a military plane after losing radio contact.



The easyJet Airbus A319 aircraft suffered a potentially catastrophic electrical fault, sending the instrument screens blank during the flight from London's Stansted to Alicante.



But the pilots, carrying 144 passengers, refused to divert to a closer landing spot because they feared they would be shot down by French military craft, an official report concluded.

 

[Dee Thom]

Pilot feared being shot down by military

Not surprised !
With the number of "Commercial" aircraft ie., Boeings 737-700 Wedgetail, and Poseiden, and Airbus A332 tankers flying around, all with the same signature footprint as a commercial airframe, one wonders when an accident WILL happen.

Cheers Dee

 

[harvyk]

one wonders when an accident WILL happen.

Cheers Dee

Iran Air Flight 655
Korean Air Lines Flight 007

Infact for some light reading see

List of airliner shootdown incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NM]

Not surprised !
With the number of "Commercial" aircraft ie., Boeings 737-700 Wedgetail, and Poseiden, and Airbus A332 tankers flying around, all with the same signature footprint as a commercial airframe, one wonders when an accident WILL happen.

Cheers Dee

I suspect the fear was not of being mistaken for a military aircraft, but fear of being mistaken for a hijacked aircraft heading for a populated "high value" target being shot down before finding its target.

Their radios (and all other electronics by the sounds of things) were inoperable, so no way to effectively communicate that they were not hijacked by just suffering electrical failure.

 

[straitman]

I find this interesting as it is contrary to normal procedures which would require a diversion.

It is probably important to know where along track the aircraft was when the radios failed. I would think that tracking all the way across French airspace could/would be more of a problem than making a diversion.

 

[oz_mark]

I find this interesting as it is contrary to normal procedures which would require a diversion.

I had a read of the report, and I am not sure I got diversion as being the normal procedure (but then I'm not a pilot). From the report (Air Accidents Investigation: 4/2009 G-EZAC Report Sections).

Notwithstanding the newspaper report, the actual investgiation report seems to not say much about their decision on where they flew too (as far as I could see)

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Radio failure procedures for aircraft in UK airspace are specified in the UK [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), section ENR 1.1.3. They were [/FONT]also available on the aircraft in a commercial booklet. In summary, in the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]event of loss of radio communication, ATC will expect an Instrument Flight [/FONT]Rules (IFR) flight to carry out the notified instrument approach procedure as specified for the designated navigational aid and, if possible, land within [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]30 minutes of the Estimated Arrival Time (EAT). [/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[medhead]

I suspect the fear was not of being mistaken for a military aircraft, but fear of being mistaken for a hijacked aircraft heading for a populated "high value" target being shot down before finding its target.

Their radios (and all other electronics by the sounds of things) were inoperable, so no way to effectively communicate that they were not hijacked by just suffering electrical failure.

I also thought that was the fear held by the pilots. But I'm very confused by their reaction. I would have thought they would raise more suspicion by diverting from the expected course - they're not talking to us and they are no longer flying on the scheduled route to the scheduled destination. :shock:

But of course the newspaper story isn't very informative, it would be good to know when the failure happened. And what about the bit on them refusing to divert to a closer landing spot, that implies they were directed to do so.

 

[NM]

I also thought that was the fear held by the pilots. But I'm very confused by their reaction. I would have thought they would raise more suspicion by diverting from the expected course - they're not talking to us and they are no longer flying on the scheduled route to the scheduled destination. :shock:

One explanation is that the company does not like them diverting to French airports and would rather them divert to a "friendly" airport where they have some ground services etc. So to avoid issues with not diverting to the closest safe runway, then chose to fly back to the UK (Bristol I think was mentioned) and used the fear of being shot down to justify their actions. Just speculation of course .

 

[straitman]

I had a read of the report, and I am not sure I got diversion as being the normal procedure (but then I'm not a pilot). From the report (Air Accidents Investigation: 4/2009 G-EZAC Report Sections).

Notwithstanding the newspaper report, the actual investgiation report seems to not say much about their decision on where they flew too (as far as I could see)

oz_mark,

Your quote put my comment right out of context:!:

I did also say that

It is probably important to know where along track the aircraft was when the radios failed. I would think that tracking all the way across French airspace could/would be more of a problem than making a diversion.

Now that I have read the incident report and have some perspective I don't disagree that it was probably the most prudent decision to continue the flight to Bristol from where they were at the time of the incident. Ten minutes were take up getting the transponder etc back on line and then from the French coast a little time to continue working the situation and then commence descent. Had they descended into France they probably would not have landed much earlier on the time line.

With regard to

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Radio failure procedures for aircraft in UK airspace are specified in the UK [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), section ENR 1.1.3. They were [/FONT]also available on the aircraft in a commercial booklet. In summary, in the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]event of loss of radio communication, ATC will expect an Instrument Flight [/FONT]Rules (IFR) flight to carry out the notified instrument approach procedure as specified for the designated navigational aid and, if possible, land within [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]30 minutes of the Estimated Arrival Time (EAT).[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] You are absolutely correct and as I said appropriate to this situation.

Hypothetically though, I ask what if it was flight ABC having just left Mumbia for London when this incident occurred? Would anyone expect them to continue to London and carry out the instrument approach? The answer is of course NO which is where I was coming from with regard to [/FONT][/FONT]'tracking all the way across French airspace' being more of a problem than making a diversion.

I hope that makes my comments a little clearer.

 

[oz_mark]

oz_mark,

Your quote put my comment right out of context:!:

<...snip...>

I hope that makes my comments a little clearer.

Like I said, I'm not a pilot and was just trying to understand your comments.

I had a read of the report to see what was said about the pilots decisions on the matter, but all I could see were some statements saying that's what they did.

Looks like Airbus got a few safety recommendations though

 

[straitman]

Like I said, I'm not a pilot and was just trying to understand your comments.

I had a read of the report to see what was said about the pilots decisions on the matter, but all I could see were some statements saying that's what they did.

Looks like Airbus got a few safety recommendations though

oz_mark,

No worries.

I tend to think things through in my head and then not spell them out adequately for others. It's something I need to watch out for.

These type of recommendations are quite normal as real life often throws up situations that the designer and manufacturer have not thought likely or possible.

 

[Flying Fox]

Their radios (and all other electronics by the sounds of things) were inoperable, so no way to effectively communicate that they were not hijacked by just suffering electrical failure.

Given the above scenario (which I believe to be correct), how did they land at the airport without talking to ATC and the airport tower?

 

[NM]

Given the above scenario (which I believe to be correct), how did they land at the airport without talking to ATC and the airport tower?

See post #9

 

[Flying Fox]

Thanks for that.

One day I will learn to read properly...

 

[straitman]

Thanks for that.

One day I will learn to read properly...

Why start now:?:

 

[Flying Fox]

ha ha ... I like it!!!