It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RAF Jets Escort Pakistan Airways Jet Into London.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
RAF Jets are escorting a Pakistan International Airlines Jet into London's Stansted Airport.

No further reports as yet. Something must be up.


www.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

According to your link the plane landed at 1450 and the police are saying it was due to a disruptive passenger and at this stage they do not believe it to be related to a hijacking attempt or terrorism.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The BBC link has been updated since i posted.




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Disruptive passengers on commercial airlines don't automatically warrant fighter escorts. Also the diversion and the subsequent ground positioning of the flight at Stanstead might suggest that initial reports indicated a higher threat level than what is normally termed as disruptive passenger behaviour

The precautions taken in this instance seem to indicate that he true nature of the situation was not properly established until after an alert level call had been received.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'd imagine some sort of threatening behavior and language and we don't know if the passenger was 80lb wet or 500lb body builder, even that doesn't mean anything as we all know ninja's strike hard and fast.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
A small thought for you. It makes no difference if it was a man or woman, large or small. IF they "say" (notice I said say not has)they have a bomb strapped to them then the crew will act accordingly. Wait for more info.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Disruptive passengers on commercial airlines don't automatically warrant fighter escorts. Also the diversion and the subsequent ground positioning of the flight at Stanstead might suggest that initial reports indicated a higher threat level than what is normally termed as disruptive passenger behaviour

The precautions taken in this instance seem to indicate that he true nature of the situation was not properly established until after an alert level call had been received.


A combative passenger will very much get the Air Forces of the world in the air after 9/11.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I always wonder what the jets would actually do, shoot the airliner down over densly populated south east England?



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Reports coming in saying the disturbace caused by a passenger who was driven crazy by the stench of farting on board.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Your sorce is updated with conflicting reasons


Essex Police later said the plane had been diverted because a man wanted by the Metropolitan Police was on board.

However, Pakistan International Airlines said in a statement that UK authorities had received "some vague security threat through an anonymous phone call" regarding the flight



If the police knew a "wanted man" was aboard the flight why not arrest him at the airport after the plane lands.

It then mentions that...

Stansted is a designated airport for dealing with hijacks and major security alerts.

Such incidents are dealt with in a remote part of the airfield to the north-west of the terminal building.




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: alldaylong

According to your link the plane landed at 1450 and the police are saying it was due to a disruptive passenger and at this stage they do not believe it to be related to a hijacking attempt or terrorism.


So it's standard SOP to scramble jets to escort passenger airliners over just a disruptive passenger?



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

they must have gotten some other intel or indications of more than just some douche and his aisle seat... precaution more or less.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
I always wonder what the jets would actually do, shoot the airliner down over densly populated south east England?


It's an interesting question. I recall reading something a while ago (I'm an old man, my memory doesn't work as well as... as... wait, what was I saying again?) that discussed a leaked document showing the RAF rules of engagement in that situation.

The key bit I recall was that, if the plane appeared to be targeting something that was on a list of "critical" locations, then it was considered that protecting those locations was the priority and so the fighters would be authorised to fire. The loss of those unfortunate enough to be passengers or underneath the plane when it hit the ground was considered an acceptable trade-off.

So, it's entirely possible that the fighters are NOT there to stop the plane or do anything other than look menacing... unless a protected location was under threat. If the plane just kept flying straight and never crossed a protected spot, the jets might well just tag along until it was safely out of UK airspace.

As I said, this is a mixture of speculation and faulty old-man recollection from something I read a long time ago. I'd be very interested if someone had more up to date ROEs, though they are likely kept fairly quiet.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Cheers for the reply

I wonder what the list of critical targets would be, nuclear power stations, Faslane, Devonport, maybe the cities of Westminster and London perhaps?
I'd love to see such a list for sure.

Of course everything comes down to a trade off, from funding of medicine (which patients are not worth the money) to how many lifebelts the local council provides at beaches etc.
where to shoot down a passenger plane is a similar trade off cost/benefit choice, just more dramatic.

Sorry OP veering off topic



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Probably the U.K. Government giving there arrival of new citizens a presidential escort. Followed by tea, a meeting with parliament, free medical,housing and money to start their new life!



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




So it's standard SOP to scramble jets to escort passenger airliners over just a disruptive passenger?


Happens often.

Standstead is set up to receive these kinds of planes where there has been some kind of disruption I think i am correct in saying Glasgow Gatwick is also set up for it. Each incident is risk assessed depending on the situation, its not uncommon for the police to be arresting someone off a flight for being "disruptive". I would guess that given the origin of this flight they risk assessed that a fighter escort would be appropriate.

In this case it seems to have just been some guy going nuts on the plane and not a attempted hijacking or terrorist attack.
edit on 7-2-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

Sorry OP veering off topic


Don't worry, there will be some RAF fighter jets along in a minute to steer you back on course and/or shoot you down if necessary.

Another point that just occurred to me - the fighter jets would have more opportunity to get eyes on the pilot, which may or may not be useful.

Also, if the hijackers turned off the transponder, this could cause problems for tracking. I believe ATC mostly uses secondary radar systems that talk to the transponder. By having a fighter jet close by, it's easier to track position, bearing, altitude, etc, by tracking the jet.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
So it's standard SOP to scramble jets to escort passenger airliners over just a disruptive passenger?


Let us see...


The RAF has scrambled fighter jets to escort a passenger plane to an airport in Scotland after it lost communication with the ground.
Oct 28, 2016


Military jets were called to escort a passenger plane to Manchester Airport today after airline crew received a hoax bomb threat.
5 August 2014


Sonic booms shook houses and rattled windows in Yorkshire on Monday night as two RAF Typhoon jets scrambled to escort a passenger aeroplane in to land.
3 May 2016


The RAF said quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft were launched from RAF Coningsby to identify an unresponsive civilian aircraft
8 APR 2016

So it is not uncommon



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: neo96
So it's standard SOP to scramble jets to escort passenger airliners over just a disruptive passenger?


Let us see...


The RAF has scrambled fighter jets to escort a passenger plane to an airport in Scotland after it lost communication with the ground.
Oct 28, 2016


Military jets were called to escort a passenger plane to Manchester Airport today after airline crew received a hoax bomb threat.
5 August 2014


Sonic booms shook houses and rattled windows in Yorkshire on Monday night as two RAF Typhoon jets scrambled to escort a passenger aeroplane in to land.
3 May 2016


The RAF said quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft were launched from RAF Coningsby to identify an unresponsive civilian aircraft
8 APR 2016

So it is not uncommon



None of your examples have anything to do with disruptive passengers?



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: neo96




So it's standard SOP to scramble jets to escort passenger airliners over just a disruptive passenger?


Happens often.

Standstead is set up to receive these kinds of planes where there has been some kind of disruption I think i am correct in saying Glasgow Gatwick is also set up for it. Each incident is risk assessed depending on the situation, its not uncommon for the police to be arresting someone off a flight for being "disruptive". I would guess that given the origin of this flight they risk assessed that a fighter escort would be appropriate.

In this case it seems to have just been some guy going nuts on the plane and not a attempted hijacking or terrorist attack.


Gatwick certainly isn't set up for it.There are no truly remote parts of it that are distant enough from public roads,residential areas or farms to isolate any potential threats without closing off those busy public roads.Stansted on the other hand is about the most difficult civil airport in the UK to go spotting at,it'd be easier to get a good view of what's happening at Groom Lake!




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join