plane over rathfarnham today

alie

A plane flew very very low over dublin14 this morning at approx 8.20 am, it was an army plane, the house shook, it set alarms off, thick black smoke was pouring out of the back and 2 helicopters flanked it, does anyone know what happened to it?

phonypony

I was wondering what the hell that was too, didn't manage to catch a glimpse of it. Was it a Casa? I remember one of them reporting an engine fire a couple months ago..

boomer_ie

alie wrote: »

A plane flew very very low over dublin14 this morning at approx 8.20 am, it was an army plane, the house shook, it set alarms off, thick black smoke was pouring out of the back and 2 helicopters flanked it, does anyone know what happened to it?

Alie what color was the plane?

One engine or two?

alie

it was grey blue, two engines, my hubby said it passed over milltown, heading towards i would reckon baldonnell

cyrusdvirus

sounds like a casa alright....Steyr should be around soon, he'll have an idea.

alie

thanks, everyone was just staring at it,and shouting, very odd nothing on the news.

Steyr

alie wrote: »

A plane flew very very low over dublin14 this morning at approx 8.20 am, it was an army plane, the house shook, it set alarms off, thick black smoke was pouring out of the back and 2 helicopters flanked it, does anyone know what happened to it?

I dont have anything yet but could you say was she a jet engine aircraft or a propellor driven aircraft?

murf313

hi all,

the casa was out this morning with two choppers around that time. There was no problems with it though when it landed.

Steyr

Cheers Murf, i know a USN C20A was due into Bal, did she go in? Was she the same C20A that was at EICK and EINN? SN:83-0500?

murf313

i have no idea, im on leave at the minute and i text one of the lads who was on duty this morning to see what the craic with the casa was. It could have been though, alot of yank aircraft lately.

Steyr

Excellent thanks, callsign for the C20A was "Catbird".

DOCARCH

I heard this too and went out to see and caught glimpse of a large exec jet of some sort on decent to Baldonnel. Did not look like any of the government jets but def not CASA. Very low and loud.

highlydebased

DOCARCH wrote: »

I heard this too and went out to see and caught glimpse of a large exec jet of some sort on decent to Baldonnel. Did not look like any of the government jets but def not CASA. Very low and loud.

Would have been it then

alie

DOCARCH wrote: »

I heard this too and went out to see and caught glimpse of a large exec jet of some sort on decent to Baldonnel. Did not look like any of the government jets but def not CASA. Very low and loud.

Hiya, how do you know its not a army plane? And how can they be permitted to fly at such a low level.?

DOCARCH

alie wrote: »

Hiya, how do you know its not a army plane? And how can they be permitted to fly at such a low level.?

What I saw could have been an 'army' plane but was not 'army' colours - was mainly white and from the glimpse I saw, looked like and executive jet (or similar sized). As to why it was flying so low, it was on descent to Baldonnel... planes do have to land sometime!

Steyr

alie wrote: »

Hiya, how do you know its not a army plane? And how can they be permitted to fly at such a low level.?

Well first off our Army doesnt operate Aircraft, thats the job of our Irish Air Corps. Military aircraft are permitted to fly at low level for any number of reasons especially that low level training is usually standard doctrine for Military forces/Air Arms so im sure it would be the same for our Air Corps.

Also as Docarch said if she was heading into Baldonnel she would have been in contact with Air Traffic Control at Baldonnel and possibly Dublin and if it was the C20A then of course it would be on a descent into Baldonnel to land on whichever runway was active at that time that Baldonnel had open for business.

highlydebased

Alie- Generally aircraft are not permitted to fly below 400 feet in built up areas normally, but this is waivered for air corp aircraft (and many other laws also)

Steyr

Neon-Circles wrote: »

Alie- Generally aircraft are not permitted to fly below 400 feet in built up areas normally, but this is waivered for air corp aircraft (and many other laws also)

I was told not below 1,500ft in a built up area and 500ft anywhere else?

shanew

here's an image (from ivor on Dublin.ie) apparently taken in Tallaght ...




Shane

highlydebased

To me (from right to left) that would be the gulfstream, learjet. beech and then the Pc9's

Steyr

shanew wrote: »

here's an image (from ivor on Dublin.ie) apparently taken in Tallaght ...




Shane

Hi Shane that picture is a bit old by at least a good few weeks if im correct as the Beech Kingair200 was grounded a few weeks ago, so unless thats changed the "Fitz" is still sitting in a Hanger at Baldonnel.

shanew

I didnt take the photo myself but was under the impression that it was taken in the last day or two ...


Shane

diverdriver

alie wrote: »

Hiya, how do you know its not a army plane? And how can they be permitted to fly at such a low level.?

Having grown up nearby. I've seen similar flights on many occasions. It was probably military all right, probably the USAF C20 as mentioned.

Obviously you found the sight unusual, I would guess the weather wasn't the best that morning? Probably low cloud? That always magnifies the sound. It's possible too that the aircraft descended below the overcast in order to stay visual with the ground. The power would be set quite high in order to maintain altitude, rather than the usual quiet approach with the engines on idle.

It was obviously flying an approach to runway 29 at Baldonnel. Runway 29 only has what's called a VOR DME approach, which is a non precision approach. The opposite runway 11 has a precision approach.

A precision approach brings you to the runway threshold by guiding you both with lateral and vertical indications. Usually in a continuous descent. A non precision approach lines you up with the runway but has no vertical indication. So you descend to minimum descent altitude the MDA then fly straight and level until you can see the runway lights. At which point you can land. If at that altitude the aircraft was in cloud the aircraft would have to go around and try again.

So what you saw that day was a jet carrying out normal non precision approach to runway 29 at Baldonnel. At 9 nautical miles out they would have turned to the 280 degree heading using the VOR. Then began to descend until they had sight of the ground. At which point they could have descended to the minimum altitude as they wished and continued straight and level. Probably when passing you they had sight of the runway lights and were continuing. They could have been as low as 421 feet above the ground at that point, perfectly safely I might add.

On a clear day they would have had the runway in sight a lot earlier and would have been higher.

So no mystery, just a routine approach in not so good weather conditions.

diverdriver

Incidentally that picture would have have been taken in 2006 either practising for or during he 1916 rising flypast that April. No mystery at all. Just Ivor pulling everyone's leg.

DOCARCH

Definitely a C20 that I saw.

alie

diverdriver wrote: »

Having grown up nearby. I've seen similar flights on many occasions. It was probably military all right, probably the USAF C20 as mentioned.

Obviously you found the sight unusual, I would guess the weather wasn't the best that morning? Probably low cloud? That always magnifies the sound. It's possible too that the aircraft descended below the overcast in order to stay visual with the ground. The power would be set quite high in order to maintain altitude, rather than the usual quiet approach with the engines on idle.

It was obviously flying an approach to runway 29 at Baldonnel. Runway 29 only has what's called a VOR DME approach, which is a non precision approach. The opposite runway 11 has a precision approach.

A precision approach brings you to the runway threshold by guiding you both with lateral and vertical indications. Usually in a continuous descent. A non precision approach lines you up with the runway but has no vertical indication. So you descend to minimum descent altitude the MDA then fly straight and level until you can see the runway lights. At which point you can land. If at that altitude the aircraft was in cloud the aircraft would have to go around and try again.

So what you saw that day was a jet carrying out normal non precision approach to runway 29 at Baldonnel. At 9 nautical miles out they would have turned to the 280 degree heading using the VOR. Then began to descend until they had sight of the ground. At which point they could have descended to the minimum altitude as they wished and continued straight and level. Probably when passing you they had sight of the runway lights and were continuing. They could have been as low as 421 feet above the ground at that point, perfectly safely I might add.

On a clear day they would have had the runway in sight a lot earlier and would have been higher.

So no mystery, just a routine approach in not so good weather conditions.

why was a helicopter flying alongside?This was lower than 421, much lower, it set alarms off etc, we are on the flight path to baldonell but never saw anything like this!

alie

Steyr wrote: »

Hi Shane that picture is a bit old by at least a good few weeks if im correct as the Beech Kingair200 was grounded a few weeks ago, so unless thats changed the "Fitz" is still sitting in a Hanger at Baldonnel.

I know ivor and he was joking about tallaght! this is not a real pic!:D

alie

DOCARCH wrote: »

What I saw could have been an 'army' plane but was not 'army' colours - was mainly white and from the glimpse I saw, looked like and executive jet (or similar sized). As to why it was flying so low, it was on descent to Baldonnel... planes do have to land sometime!

It was grey blue not white! and i would rather they didnt land on my gaff!:D

highlydebased

Of relevance- In BAL this afternoon was US coast guard HC144A. Serial 2308 (new on the fleet)

diverdriver

why was a helicopter flying alongside?This was lower than 421, much lower, it set alarms off etc, we are on the flight path to baldonell but never saw anything like this!

Are you sure the helicopter was alongside, you see that would be unusual. Helicopters and aeroplanes are not exactly compatible in that way. How close were they? It could simply they happened to be in the vicinity of each other. Was it the Garda helicopter? They fly low and are noisy enough. Most likely scenario then is that the jet was inbound to Baldonnel followed by the Garda helicopter which is operated by the the Air Corps too. Both going to the sme destination. Was the weather good or bad?

As for the height, I'm sorry but it is notoriously difficult to judge heights of low flying aircraft. So I doubt if it was much lower than 400 or 500 feet. That is quite low and sufficient to set off alarms etc. If you are specifically referring to the helicopter then they can fly as low as they need to, so could be lower.

alie

yes it flying alongside it and not police helicopter, they are always hanging over watching the m50, it was very unusual, i hope it wont become a regular thing as it was very scary.

Steyr

Neon-Circles wrote: »

Of relevance- In BAL this afternoon was US coast guard HC144A. Serial 2308 (new on the fleet)

I've been told her serial is 2309, arrived around 14:15PM on delivery flight from CASA.

Steyr

alie wrote: »

yes it flying alongside it and not police helicopter, they are always hanging over watching the m50, it was very unusual, i hope it wont become a regular thing as it was very scary.

Although it may seem scary the aircraft was under controlled flight so you really have nothing much to worry about.

highlydebased

Steyr wrote: »

Although it may seem scary the aircraft was under controlled flight so you really have nothing much to worry about.

Several sources would tell me its 2308! Cant find any other 2308 anyway so it must be

Omcd

I saw a similiar thing to alie, a large aircraft flying very very low over the suburbs, closely escorted by a helicopter. Though this was about 25 years ago, over Ballinteer, on the foothills of the Dublin mountains. Thing was it was sooo low, but it was coming from the direction of the mountains, so it was effectively after flying down the side of a mountain. What type of aircraft it was I dont know, as all I saw of it was a huge belly passing over, but it was definitely airliner size.

diverdriver

Indeed you weren't imagining things, it was probably a Boeing 707 flown by no less a person the Kieran O'Connor the owner of the National Flight Centre. It was for the movie 'White Nights' made in '84 or '85 starring Mikhail Baryshnikov. The jet flew very low over the southside descending into Baldonnel to give the impression of an aircraft crashing. In the movie the plane was a 747 which supposedly crashes in Siberia with the characters aboard.

I remember seeing it and genuinely thought it was crashing into Baldonnel until I saw it climb away in the far distance. Never saw the helicopter though although to be honest I wasn't paying much attention to anything else. Seeing a 707 that low was more than impressive. :eek: In the movie they used an Aer Lingus 747 repainted in fictional colours for most of the obvious shots but apparently modified a 707 for the actual accident sequence.

By the way, if you ever wondered why Baldonnel isn't really considered for use as a commercial airport. Imagine the furore as jet after jet flies over some of the most expensive suburbs in the country LOL.

EchoIndia

Diverdriver

I think you are confusing two events. The White Nights movie was made at RAF Macrihanish in Scotland in 1984 and used an ex-SAA Boeing 707-444 modified to resemble a crashed 747. Here is the Aer Lingus 747 involved in the flying sequences: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24101413@N03/3775489917/

The 707 that visited Baldonnel was 5N-TAS, in 1994, though I can't remember the nature of the filming it was involved in:
http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/1022388/M/Boeing-707-321C/5N-TAS/Omega-Air-OME/?&sid=2951367722&sp=6

diverdriver

I concede I may be confusing the films but perhaps OMCD is confusing the time frame. Maybe someone could ask KoC? Although I'm pretty sure it was he who told me the story. Also in 1994 I was hanging around in Weston quite a lot, almost on a daily basis at one point. I'm pretty sure it would have been a topic of conversation. If anyone knew the name of the second film, it could clinch it.

But there is no doubt there was a low flying 707 over the southside at least twice. As I recall the one I saw was very low and very fast and I thought it was crashing and I was very used to seeing aircraft inbound to Bal at that stage, so it stood out. I should also point out that I was an adult and pilot on both possible dates. (Yes I'm old.):(

Omcd

Could have been a 707, and it was absolutely definitely mid '80s, though what exact year I no longer remember.

alie

Steyr wrote: »

Although it may seem scary the aircraft was under controlled flight so you really have nothing much to worry about.

A bit like 9/11?

cyrusdvirus

alie wrote: »

A bit like 9/11?

That's a bit of a sensationalist comment isn't it? No need for it imo

Omcd

Steyr wrote: »

Although it may seem scary the aircraft was under controlled flight so you really have nothing much to worry about.

In fairness, at the point of observation, you can only assume that on the balance of probabilities.

alie

gatecrash wrote: »

That's a bit of a sensationalist comment isn't it? No need for it imo

No, i disagree , a controlled flight crashed on 9/11. The plane that flew over us last week may have been controlled but it was flying far too low over a built up area. And many people thought it was coming down, i asked origanlly if anyone here knew of it and most of you dont seem to know and are just assuming, i do know the difference between a light aircraft and others. Sensationalist , definatley not!

Cessna_Pilot

alie wrote: »

No, i disagree , a controlled flight crashed on 9/11. The plane that flew over us last week may have been controlled but it was flying far too low over a built up area. And many people thought it was coming down, i asked origanlly if anyone here knew of it and most of you dont seem to know and are just assuming, i do know the difference between a light aircraft and others. Sensationalist , definatley not!

And you're not making any assumtions no? You say it was far too low over a built up area. You don't know that at all.

pclancy

and back on topic...

alie

Cessna_Pilot wrote: »

And you're not making any assumtions no? You say it was far too low over a built up area. You don't know that at all.

A plane has landed on the dublin mountains tonight, it was just on the radio, is it true?

Steyr

alie wrote: »

A plane has landed on the dublin mountains tonight, it was just on the radio, is it true?

Chinese Lantern apparently.

alie

Another very low flying transport plane at 6 pm today, this time it dipped and alarm on plane went off, it was heading in baldonell direction.

alie

Steyr wrote: »

Chinese Lantern apparently.

LMAO,:D

cyrusdvirus

alie wrote: »

Another very low flying transport plane at 6 pm today, this time it dipped and alarm on plane went off, it was heading in baldonell direction.

An alarm on the plane went off? How, pray tell could you hear the alarm on the plane going off? Or are you just here to annoy people?

Dacian

alie wrote: »

Another very low flying transport plane at 6 pm today, this time it dipped and alarm on plane went off, it was heading in baldonell direction.

This was a US C-17 landing at Baldonnell to drop off 2 ex-Guantanamo Bay prisoners that the Irsh govt has agreed to host. It took off about an hour later to continue its journey to the UK.

Thread about it in this forum.