Air France flight escorted by 2 RAF Typhoon jets over UK Airspace


Recommended Posts

Last night at around 10PM, two RAF Typhoon jets went sonic boom over UK airspace to escort an unresponsive Air France flight.

 

Preview:

 

Quote

Loud bangs heard in parts of Yorkshire were sonic booms from Typhoon jets scrambled to identify "an unresponsive civilian aircraft", the RAF has said.

The aircraft were launched from RAF Coningsby, in Lincolnshire, on Monday and helped guide an Air France plane to a safe landing in Newcastle.

People reported their houses shaking at about 21:50 BST after hearing what sounded like two loud explosions.

These were later confirmed to have been sonic booms.

An RAF spokesman said: "Quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft were launched today from RAF Coningsby to identify an unresponsive civilian aircraft.

"Communications were re-established and the aircraft has been safely landed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36188979

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at work at the time, I thought a car had driven into the building, the ground shook!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to learn the process followed on this. If a plane is found to have terrorists on board, who plan to fly in to a building, wouldn't shooting the plane down be somewhat counter productive, unless over sea? I mean, a plane over the UK that is shot down, would leave large debris that would\could cause a large amount of damage to a large area, possibly killing a lot of people in the process? Especially as the debris would be moving at quite some speed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, restroom said:

I would be interested to learn the process followed on this. If a plane is found to have terrorists on board, who plan to fly in to a building, wouldn't shooting the plane down be somewhat counter productive, unless over sea? I mean, a plane over the UK that is shot down, would leave large debris that would\could cause a large amount of damage to a large area, possibly killing a lot of people in the process? Especially as the debris would be moving at quite some speed...

They would want to avoid shooting it over a city, but much of the UK is also rural. That said, even over a city, the level of damage of parts of a plane coming down over a large area can easily be less than it hitting it's desired target. Worst case would be shooting it down and having the pieces all fall in over a large group of people outside, like a concert, sporting event, even busy streets. Anything short of that and shooting it down will often times be the less dangerous course of action. Plus you never know where they are gonna aim for till the end, so can't really take the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ryoken said:

They would want to avoid shooting it over a city, but much of the UK is also rural. That said, even over a city, the level of damage of parts of a plane coming down over a large area can easily be less than it hitting it's desired target. Worst case would be shooting it down and having the pieces all fall in over a large group of people outside, like a concert, sporting event, even busy streets. Anything short of that and shooting it down will often times be the less dangerous course of action. Plus you never know where they are gonna aim for till the end, so can't really take the risk.

That's kind of what I thought. The other thing is, that a terrorist I only likely to hijack the plane once it is in the location of the target. They wouldn't want to hijack it at takeoff, then force them to fly all the way to the target etc. There would be too much time for them to be stopped.

 

It would be interesting to know from an RAF\Army\Security services point of view, what the process would be. Your right about the rural areas, however if the hijacker suddenly starts just over a city, then the likelihood of a controlled takedown over a rural area is minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, restroom said:

That's kind of what I thought. The other thing is, that a terrorist I only likely to hijack the plane once it is in the location of the target. They wouldn't want to hijack it at takeoff, then force them to fly all the way to the target etc. There would be too much time for them to be stopped.

 

It would be interesting to know from an RAF\Army\Security services point of view, what the process would be. Your right about the rural areas, however if the hijacker suddenly starts just over a city, then the likelihood of a controlled takedown over a rural area is minimal.

Actually most hijackings happen early-midway in the flight, not at the end. They need to make sure they have control, wait too long and it'll land before you get into the cockpit. Also if it suddenly happens over a city, it won't be over it for long, passenger jets aren't bikes, they really don't just loiter around over a city, and it would only take them a few min to fly over one side to side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, restroom said:

I would be interested to learn the process followed on this. If a plane is found to have terrorists on board, who plan to fly in to a building, wouldn't shooting the plane down be somewhat counter productive, unless over sea? I mean, a plane over the UK that is shot down, would leave large debris that would\could cause a large amount of damage to a large area, possibly killing a lot of people in the process? Especially as the debris would be moving at quite some speed...

Probably as a last resort. Eitherway, that plane is coming down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Dot Matrix said:

Probably as a last resort. Eitherway, that plane is coming down. 

That's exactly it. Either way, the terrorist gets the result they want... death to innocent people. Maybe not the exact target they had in mind, but still a substantial amount of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, restroom said:

That's exactly it. Either way, the terrorist gets the result they want... death to innocent people. Maybe not the exact target they had in mind, but still a substantial amount of death.

Having a plane go down is bad, having it go down taking out Parliament, Buckingham Palace, etc.. thats worse. The lesser loss is still quite a bit better than the worst case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ryoken said:

Having a plane go down is bad, having it go down taking out Parliament, Buckingham Palace, etc.. thats worse. The lesser loss is still quite a bit better than the worst case.

True. Terrorists will see it as a win either way, which is sad and sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 5/9/2016 at 3:46 PM, Ryoken said:

Having a plane go down is bad, having it go down taking out Parliament, Buckingham Palace, etc.. thats worse. The lesser loss is still quite a bit better than the worst case.

 

"having it go down taking out Parliament"  Seriously?! #GuyFawkesWasRight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2016 at 6:51 PM, DocM said:

After 9/11 unresponsive planes draw attention, for damn good reason. 

I find many of the reactions and changes to our world since 9/11 to be a farce, but some (like this) really hold water.  The way certain aspects of aviation were treated seems ridiculously lax with hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Draggendrop locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.