Etihad A340 Directed To Stansted

None. But, presumably, if the threat was both credible and judged to be imminent, the presence of an accompanying fighter could mean the determination of where and when the aircraft was destroyed.

Indeed, Kev. And that’s the elephant in the room, if you like.

In situations like this, the role of fighter aircraft is not to ‘guide, to ‘deter’ or to ‘protect’. These are simplistic tabloid fantasies.

They scramble to ensure that, should the worst case scenario transpire, the authorities can choose the least worst from a small number of grim options – as you outlined so clearly.

The fighter escorts as described in my posts (ideally 2 flankers and 1 atop) usually permits the regular civilian flight crew to gently bank and descend the civilian to ideally head over the ocean (applicable if civilian has arrived over mainland Britain).

Unless the terrorists are many in number and using expert GPS units (or at night good with the visible positions of stars and planets in the sky). This buys the RAF command centre some time as a gentle unobtrusive change of civilian’s course occurs.

I still don’t get it. If the terrorists are in the cockpit then no-one can convince me they won’t notice the pilot change the heading of the aircraft whether he does it manually or through auto-pilot. If they’re not in the cockpit then what difference does it make anyway? :confused:

We sleep soundly in our beds thanks to the boys in blue being so highly trained and professional in the way they guard our skies over Britain.

Hopefully you’re not under the illusion the UK is the only nation with a highly skilled air force? Your frequent nationalistic pro-military comments would almost seem to imply you are.

There are some clues in some of my posts – and why my comments

Hi Guys

I am not an expert psychologist in anti terrorist subjects.

What I have studied in depth are PAN-Am Lockerbie, El-Al (Boeing 747 freighter) in Holland tower block, 9/11, Gonesse and some other well documented over land major air crash incidents, and the specific interest was in preserving (making them disaster tolerant) the operation of nationally sensitive or commercially vital software applications and storage (server) information systems.

The aspect of vital technical interest is the largest projectile impact, debris spread and ensuing fire.

PanAm Lockerbie has in the archive footage (public domain) very clear radar plots and it always brings a tear to my eye when I look over my records and see the ‘radar plot’ pictures of the one minute intact PanAm (under full ATC control), a millisecond later simply changing into a myriad of large to tiny moving dots and the ensuing geographical spread of post explosion debris over vast areas around Lockerbie and other places in Scotland.

The fighter escorts as described in my posts (ideally 2 flankers and 1 atop) usually permits the regular civilian flight crew to gently bank and descend the civilian to ideally head over the ocean (applicable if civilian has arrived over mainland Britain).

Unless the terrorists are many in number and using expert GPS units (or at night good with the visible positions of stars and planets in the sky). This buys the RAF command centre some time as a gentle unobtrusive change of civilian’s course occurs.

The terrorists can see the fighters from windows (deliberate) and start to rapidly wonder what is likely to happen next. Keep the ‘maniacs’ guessing.

Of course they may detonate a device/s at any time and prevention of this isn’t ever possible using the RAF or at present any other external means (apart from careful verbal negotiation inside the civilian or via RT from the ground).

The big emotive decision comes in, if, when and where to shoot the civilian down in the event of the terrorists not permitting an agreed landing.

I don’t think in any terrorist situation in the air or on the ground one can predict who will give the final order to shoot and it is likely in the air to be the collective information from the airborne RAF (plus all available intelligence on the terrorists if identified), ATC dialogues, and radar plots, being relayed to a very senior member of the defence staff/cabinet; on the basis that the civilian could or is heading for a vital/strategic defence or civilian terrorist target.
This is no different to any real theatre of war situation.

A very very ugly situation but at all times paramount is to minimise the un connected civilian deaths and prevent destruction of vital resources on the ground.

Again no different to the situation presenting in the two world wars when the RAF defended the UK from enemy attack.
Also RAF Northern QRA regularly intercept similar intruders (intent on possible espionage) or other purposes (occasionally accidental) from the old adversary from the ‘cold war’ era.

We sleep soundly in our beds thanks to the boys in blue being so highly trained and professional in the way they guard our skies over Britain.

What steps, exactly, could fighter aircraft take to prevent someone on board an airliner from detonating a bomb?

None. But, presumably, if the threat was both credible and judged to be imminent, the presence of an accompanying fighter could mean the determination of where and when the aircraft was destroyed. Would the lesser of two evils be the Lincolnshire Coast? Or would it be considered expedient to wait until a terrorist detonated any device above a major conurbation?

I don’t know the answers, just glad I don’t have to make the decision and, if necessary, destroy an airliner filled with two hundred innocents and half a dozen terrorists.

As regards Sky High’s question, I imagine, time permitting, it would be a COBRA decision. If there was no time for a committee then I don’t envy the person or persons who would have to make a snap decision.

Regards,

kev35

I was wondering the same, Lance!

No, it doesn’t. But when you have someone on board a plane who may detonate a bomb you take all precautions. You don’t wait until you’re completely sure that it’s absolutely necessary to scramble aircraft, because if you do, you may be too late.

What steps, exactly, could fighter aircraft take to prevent someone on board an airliner from detonating a bomb?

Originally Posted by Sky High View Post
In a case such as this, who actually makes the decision to scramble aircraft to intercept and accompany the airliner to a safe landing?
I repeat my question, slightly amended.

Now here is a man from MM who might be able this question I have posed earlier. What is the chain of reporting and who makes the decision?

I’m aware of that but where in any report about this incident does it say terrorists were in the cockpit controlling the plane? Don’t you think we should stick to the facts of this specific incident? :confused:

No, it doesn’t. But when you have someone on board a plane who may detonate a bomb you take all precautions. You don’t wait until you’re completely sure that it’s absolutely necessary to scramble aircraft, because if you do, you may be too late.

Terrorists are not likely to adhere to instructions of an ATC or any authority.
A cockpit crew under a terrorist threat may not be able to take ATC instructions as easily as imagined – if denied such by the potential terrorist/s.

I’m aware of that but where in any report about this incident does it say terrorists were in the cockpit controlling the plane? Don’t you think we should stick to the facts of this specific incident? :confused:

In response PMN

[QUOTE=PMN;1695604]A 3rd aircraft carefully manoeuvring the aircraft out of any civilian airspace? Surely ATC can just tell the pilot what direction to point in and he manoeuvres the plane himself? :confused:

I need something explaining here! Many commercial aircraft have a glide ratio of around 15:1 so if you get rid of the engines at, say, 10,000 feet then the thing could potentially fly on and crash something like 30 miles further on. Surely if you were shooting an aircraft down you’d want to choose where you did it very carefully and make it as swift and quick as possible rather than let it fly on and potentially end up somewhere less than ideal? I’m no expert in shooting planes down but the logic of what you say there isn’t quite getting through to me. :confused:

I think he is possibly aware of that. ;)[/QUOTE]

Hi PMN

Quote 1 response
Terrorists are not likely to adhere to instructions of an ATC or any authority.
A cockpit crew under a terrorist threat may not be able to take ATC instructions as easily as imagined – if denied such by the potential terrorist/s.
A visual on either side of RAF fighters as flankers and a fighter atop showing just ahead of the civilian cockpit is adequate to keep the terrorist/s guessing as to what is likely to happen next. The civilian crew can either gently follow the only path being carved out for them by the 3 fighter escorts, usually slowly down to a safe height or deliberately try to force a crash into one or all of the fighters (unless flying being done by terrorist themselves – this may already have been revealed by any ATC contact, unlikely though with modern door access to cockpit). The diversion direction in an island the size of UK mainland would be towards the ocean.

Quote 2 response
As above slowly heading the civilian downwards, towards and over the ocean, then if any shooting down had to occur there may/would be a chance of saving some passengers. Hence engines first target. A glide 30 miles (as you say) across the sea of the civilian isn’t a difficult distance for any rescue craft including helicopters to reach. RT from RAF can be trying to organise such support.
There is absolutely no logic in a situation like this, bar simply trying to stay ahead of sick minds (they are usually illogical when faced with discovery or heavy armed opposition and can behave even more irrationally/illogically).Regular training included in the RAF professional programme supplied by anti terrorist psychologists is likely to be in place since 9/11.
The scenarios above are unlikely and if a shooting down had to be carried out (heaven forbid) the press and do-gooder politicos would be at it for years following trying to be armchair RAF pilots as well as an armchair civilian pilot.:rolleyes:

Quote 3 response
I am sure he is.:D:rolleyes:

As you will gather I have no time for blackmailers, terrorists or anarchists – this remains a democratic country and there is absolutely no need to try to win arguments by taking innocent lives whatever one’s grievance or cause and certainly no reason to bring international terrorism into UK airspace on the possible premise that the perpetrators will be treated leniently.
The crazy SNP’s nonsense over the Megrahi release certainly isn’t a reason for terrorists to head towards Scotland or it’s airspace either.
Leuchars scrambles northern QRA Typhoons so orders come from outwith SNP control thankfully.

A 3rd Typhoon or other RAF a/c had it been required is all it would have taken to carefully manouvre the civillian aircraft out of any civillian airspace e.g. to over the sea.

A 3rd aircraft carefully manoeuvring the aircraft out of any civilian airspace? Surely ATC can just tell the pilot what direction to point in and he manoeuvres the plane himself? :confused:

Let’s face it one hopes it would never come to actually shooting the civilian out of the skies and if it did RAF Hawks could do it by taking out the engines very quickly.

I need something explaining here! Many commercial aircraft have a glide ratio of around 15:1 so if you get rid of the engines at, say, 10,000 feet then the thing could potentially fly on and crash something like 30 miles further on. Surely if you were shooting an aircraft down you’d want to choose where you did it very carefully and make it as swift and quick as possible rather than let it fly on and potentially end up somewhere less than ideal? I’m no expert in shooting planes down but the logic of what you say there isn’t quite getting through to me. :confused:

This wasn’t a nostalgic air display or air show,but for want of a better word an attention seeking ‘lunatic’ on the civilian flight threatening God knows what.

I think he is possibly aware of that. 😉

This wasn’t a nostalgic air display or air show

Al i can say is the typhoon may have did its bit on the QRA but you will never beat a pair of lightnings!:diablo::diablo:

Hi Zouzy86
This wasn’t a nostalgic air display or air show,but for want of a better word an attention seeking ‘lunatic’ on the civilian flight threatening God knows what. Sure in it’s time it probably would have been English Electric Lightnings scrambling as QRA.
You have had your nostalgic moment.:cool::)
In reality the speed to reach the civilian after scrambling is critical but after that the Typhoons or for that matter 2 Lightnings would have great difficulty (throttled right back) in staying (if in daylight) in close visual contact with the civilian cockpit in addition to any RT which may have to be via RAF ground control (for security reasons).
Flanking and flying atop could be done even by nimble RAF Hawks but reaching the civilian quickly after scrambling may be the drawback they may suffer. Let’s face it one hopes it would never come to actually shooting the civilian out of the skies and if it did RAF Hawks could do it by taking out the engines very quickly. Can you imagine the politically correct inquiry after that.:eek:
Along with the civilian ATCs and radar operators who shouldn’t be forgotten in praise for accurately tracking the civilian in this instance.
Still its the RAF that count from Hurricane and Spitfire days through to the Typhoon – they guard our skies very professionally.:D

Al i can say is the typhoon may have did its bit on the QRA but you will never beat a pair of lightnings!:diablo::diablo:

Let’s simply be glad of RAF QRA still working

Nobody has made an argument about the costs of this operation. It is also worth noting that questions were only asked about who would have ordered such an operation (and who would foot the bill) before it was revealed that this was a passenger threatening to detonate some sort of explosive device.

Hi Michael

It does not matter RAF QRA may at times ‘scramble’ for similar hoaxes some of which we may never know about – that’s what QRA is about – safer than sorry and avoiding extra lives being lost.

At a time when the RAF are being ‘pruned’ let’s applaud their professionalism and let politicians begin to think again.

Some of the world out there is a nasty defiant venemous piece of vermin ready to strike like a coiled spring and the economic recession is causing even previously sane people to go completely ‘loopy’.

Mainland Britain is an island, therefore defending it is relatively easy if we let the professionals do it for us with tools that are adequate.

Can’t see a politician managing to fly a Typhoon or other RAF jet in an emergency.

No ‘beef’ with you Michael 🙂 just mad at all the defence cuts.:mad:

It was an effective/essential RAF op. – and had it been for real rather than a hoax we would not be arguing about costs/who ordered the ‘scramble’.

Nobody has made an argument about the costs of this operation. It is also worth noting that questions were only asked about who would have ordered such an operation (and who would foot the bill) before it was revealed that this was a passenger threatening to detonate some sort of explosive device.

It was an effective/essential RAF drill – had it been for real rather than a hoax

It was an effective/essential RAF op. – and had it been for real rather than a hoax we would not be arguing about costs/who ordered the ‘scramble’.

A 3rd Typhoon or other RAF a/c had it been required is all it would have taken to carefully manouvre the civillian aircraft out of any civillian airspace e.g. to over the sea. Then the bomber (in this case hoaxer) may still have detonated but the losses would have been minimal on the ground. Sure the pax on the civillian were sadly sacrificed but that was the bomber’s original plan anyway. On the other hand if the RAF Typhoons got the civillian down lown enough over an ocean already ready with some rescue vessels ready to go out then there would be a chance of saving some of the civillian pax.

2 Typhoon flankers and one Typhoon/other RAF a/c up top preventing the civillian gaining any unecessary height would be the ideal.

The RAF train and possibly require regular drill in these manouvres and probably would have got themselves out of trouble had the civillian detonated.
On the other hand that is what we admire and bow to the RAF as guardians of our UK skies for – to do exactly that including the ultimate sacrifice for Queen and Country.

And had I lost a loved one on the flight in question (unlikely as they have more discerning choice of carrier) I would sadly mourn but know that their sacrifice was to ensure the safety of many others not directly even connected with the incident.

Had this possibly happened (USAF jets) in the case of the 9/11 hijacked aircraft Nos 3 and 4 then history of that day may be different. No more on No 4 though enough controversy rages already on that one. And by miracles if Nos. 1 and 2 had been intercepted what a different world we would be facing.

All praise to the boys in blue I salute you and this country needs you.

In a case such as this, who actually makes the decision to scramble aircraft to intercept and accompany the airliner to a safe landing?

I repeat my question, slightly amended.

Man pleads guilty to bomb hoax

BBC News

From what i gather the passenger was making ‘threats’ on board the flight, hence why the escort I believe.

If the Typhoons were scrambled because of a disruptive passenger/s, I wonder if they will have to pay the RAF for its time and fuel.
I sincerely hope so.