Armed US plane landed at Shannon Airport without permission

DieselPowered

From RTE News today.

"The US government has blamed an administrative error after a US plane armed with a fixed weapon landed at Shannon Airport without permission.
Details of the unauthorised landing were revealed by Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore in response to a parliamentary question by Labour TD Derek Nolan.
In a written reply to Mr Nolan, Mr Gilmore said he was aware that a US plane armed with a fixed weapon landed at Shannon Airport in the period prior to September 2013.He said the case was raised at the highest possible level with the US Embassy.
An official there said it was an isolated incident that had taken place as a result of an administrative error, he said.The minister said assurances were given that steps had been taken to prevent any recurrence.
Under Irish law, permission is normally granted to military aircraft landing at Irish airports, provided the aircraft are unarmed and carry no arms, ammunition or explosives. In the period to September 2013, 366 such landings occurred.All but 30 of those involved US military planes".

What does a fixed weapon consist of in this situation?

roundymac

Could be a grease gun in the tool box.:P

St. Leibowitz

DieselPowered wrote: »

What does a fixed weapon consist of in this situation?

It could have been an internal cannon on an F15 or an F16. Any of those land a Shannon recently ? I have a vague recollection of something landing during a ferry flight because there was an issue with the A2A refulling probe on a tanker, but it may have not have been into Ireland, or even over the Atlantic. Does a tech stop need this clearence, or is it covered as an emergency ??

vicwatson

St. Leibowitz wrote: »

It could have been an internal cannon on an F15 or an F16. Any of those land a Shannon recently ? I have a vague recollection of something landing during a ferry flight because there was an issue with the A2A refulling probe on a tanker, but it may have not have been into Ireland, or even over the Atlantic. Does a tech stop need this clearence, or is it covered as an emergency ??

Don't think it was an internal weapon as The Irish Times states "Mr Gilmore said that the Garda and Defence Forces providing security at the airport reported that a US military aircraft, which had landed, was “visibly armed”."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/armed-us-aircraft-s-shannon-stop-breached-irish-rules-1.1564777

Under Irish law, permission is normally granted to military aircraft landing at Irish airports, provided the aircraft are unarmed and carry no arms, ammunition or explosives.

My question is where do the troops guns go on these flights? Are thye shipped back to the USA seperately or are they in the hold of the flights carrying soldiers??

DieselPowered

I've been in Shannon duty free when troops have arrived in and they were not carrying, so either in the hold or already being shipped separate I presume?

flynnlives

was it a hercules "spooky". that might explain what they mean by "fixed weapon"

if it was a fighter aircraft they would have just said it was a jet fighter

JamieIsGod

Would have to be either an AC or MC 130 due to the mention of a "fixed gun" more than likely an MC as there are a few of them based in the UK afaik.

my friend

And if permission was refused ?

Our response capabilities to stop them ?

Laughable stuff

Gilmore on a solo run.

Captain Chaos

Yeah it was an AC-130H/W.

DieselPowered

my friend wrote: »

Laughable stuff

Why is this even an issue apart from it being highlighted.

Tenger

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Yeah it was an AC-130H/W.

Surprised we haven't seen pics....must have been short notice arrival as the SNN spotters usually get prior info.

shanman

Why all the fuss over an aircraft with a gun showing at Shannon belonging to a friendly (very) nation with no hostile intent yet a flotilla of armed warships can sail up the Lee without a mention even one belonging to a country backing the Assad regime. As usual a nation of double standards.

urajoke

Why the fuss ? Because there is about 7 people in the country who get upset when our "neutrality" gets abused and as we know the needs of the few far outway the "couldn't care less there's more important things in life to worry about" people.

It'll blow over in a few days and only the few will still remember.

Foggy43

Maybe it was raised in the Dail, to waste time during a question answer session. I do believe there are still some heated questions towards the budget a few days ago. They do it here in Westminster. Get a member of your party to ask a question on something that has happened recently, off topic, just to take the heat off for a few minutes and try and run out of time.

Just a thought.

Locker10a

urajoke wrote: »

Why the fuss ? Because there is about 7 people in the country who get upset when our "neutrality" gets abused and as we know the needs of the few far outway the "couldn't care less there's more important things in life to worry about" people.

It'll blow over in a few days and only the few will still remember.

Well I can only speak for myself but I would not be happy at all about US armed aircraft using any Irish airport as a stop over, so im very glad it was highlighted and has been dealt with swiftly.

johnsds

Locker10a wrote: »

Well I can only speak for myself but I would not be happy at all about US armed aircraft using any Irish airport as a stop over, so im very glad it was highlighted and has been dealt with swiftly.

Just US Aircraft? Oh the humanity.

cml387

Locker10a wrote: »

Well I can only speak for myself but I would not be happy at all about US armed aircraft using any Irish airport as a stop over, so im very glad it was highlighted and has been dealt with swiftly.

Calm down dear. They aren't going to use it on us.

Aotearoa

we are "neutral"

tankbarry

I've been in Shannon duty free when troops have arrived in and they were not carrying, so either in the hold or already being shipped separate I presume?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKMu6q6Xu_OlmedubDxyllPytEYX0T5tfaIr5tr_bcnTA2b9iksA


I have personaly seen aircraft the same as this 1 in shannon that had M16's strapped to the floor along with pistol's. This 100% true and don't let the government tell you any different.

Chuck de Mawl

cml387 wrote: »

Calm down dear. They aren't going to use it on us.

Oh, that's alright then. So long as it's killing foreigners... and as we know, no innocent civilians are being killed, right?

urajoke

Chuck de Mawl wrote: »

Oh, that's alright then. So long as it's killing foreigners... and as we know, no innocent civilians are being killed, right?

Seriously did anyone get a picture or did it come in at night ?!

Chuck de Mawl

urajoke wrote: »

Seriously did anyone get a picture or did it come in at night ?!

It stayed overnight, someone got a good picture of it departing in daylight, but for some reason it's no longer publicly visible on their Flicker stream.

Google AC130W images, and you'll see what it looks like. IT has a 30mm cannon on the left side, near the nose, and missile launchers in the tail.

DieselPowered

ok, so found this, The aircraft in question was a US Air Force Hercules AC-130W, registration 87-9288. It arrived in Shannon on September 5th and departed the following day. The aircraft in question has a 30mm cannon and a laser guided missile system.

Photo from Airliners.net shows the aircraft as a regular C130H, before it got upgraded to a C130W (Gunship) at some point.



There is a link to an image of the aircraft taking off in the comments of this site. It may or may not be from a Shannon spotter.
Not sure why the image was deleted from flickr, but I won't post it here in case of issues.

eatmyshorts

shanman wrote: »

.. even one belonging to a country backing the Assad regime.

Anyone with an iota of sense and an ability to understand history should be backing the Assad regime.

breanach78

urajoke wrote: »

Why the fuss ? Because there is about 7 people in the country who get upset when our "neutrality" gets abused and as we know the needs of the few far outway the "couldn't care less there's more important things in life to worry about" people.

It'll blow over in a few days and only the few will still remember.

Agreed.

Chuck de Mawl

urajoke wrote: »

Why the fuss ? Because there is about 7 people in the country who get upset when our "neutrality" gets abused and as we know the needs of the few far outway the "couldn't care less there's more important things in life to worry about" people.

It'll blow over in a few days and only the few will still remember.

I wouldn't hire you to do polling. Remember those polls that actually asked people about this topic? A majority were against the use of our airports for war.
And there was certainly more than 7 people who marched down O'Connell Street in Dublin in what may have been the biggest demo in decades.
and more than 7 at the last vigil at Shannon (which was last month, and included a bus load from Dublin).

But hey, if you're giving away free straw, do you have any bailin' twine to go with it?

Locker10a

johnsds wrote: »

Just US Aircraft? Oh the humanity.

Ehh no, I said US as this thread is specifically about a US plane, its in the title in case you didn't see it

Locker10a

cml387 wrote: »

Calm down dear. They aren't going to use it on us.

That's not the point

Depp

if the picture is genuine its definitely a spooky, who cares though, plane landed in shannon...big whoop...

Chuck de Mawl

Depp wrote: »

if the picture is genuine its definitely a spooky, who cares though, plane landed in shannon...big whoop...

Just another small example of the mentality at Shannon. Weapons (and who knows what else) out of sight out of mind... we all pretend that the aircrews are only out practising manouvres in peace time, and having a round of the black stuff afterwards.

Doesn't matter what that C17 or that MD11F is carrying, or who will be dead, injured or orphansed later.

However, any visible signs of what Shannon actually facilitates can smash the little mythology... and we don't want to think about that.

Sure our little country couldn't be culpable for any of that carnage... we just refuel them en route... and subsidise their travel through our airspace.

maquiladora

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Anyone with an iota of sense and an ability to understand history should be backing the Assad regime.

Plus you get a free Russia Today coffee mug and t-shirt too.

smurfjed

and subsidise their travel through our airspace

So they get free enroute charges? Are you sure of that?

Chuck de Mawl

smurfjed wrote: »

So they get free enroute charges? Are you sure of that?

Yes, our govt agreed a 'quid pro quo' whereby in return for any Irish Air Corp flights getting 'free" ATC services in the US (you can imagine how often that happens)... the US military is not paying ATC charges in our airspace. So the taxpayer foots the bill to the Irish Aviation Authority instead. It was hitting about 3 million a year at one stage. Not sure how high it is this year.

newcavanman

Aotearoa wrote: »

we are "neutral"

We are always "neutral" when it suits us . Its easy being "neutral" when the whole of NATO was standing between us and the Warsaw pact . It was easy being neutral when the Uk was being bombed by the germans during WW2 or when ships were being torpedoed almost within sight of our own "neutral" coastline .
Typical of the left wing claptrap we get in this country. If it wasnt for other countries being willing to stand up against tyrrany and oppression wyou wouldnt have the freedom to make your comments

newcavanman

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Anyone with an iota of sense and an ability to understand history should be backing the Assad regime.

Have to agree with you, the simple fact is that countries lie Syria, and most of the other arab countries are not ready for democracy. Look at Libya and Tunisia, they may not have been great before, but to me, an ill informed westerner, they dont seem any better off now. Instead of a dictator, they now have mob rule, which, depending on your local mob, can be a very nasty thing

Chuck de Mawl

newcavanman wrote: »

We are always "neutral" when it suits us . Its easy being "neutral" when the whole of NATO was standing between us and the Warsaw pact . It was easy being neutral when the Uk was being bombed by the germans during WW2 or when ships were being torpedoed almost within sight of our own "neutral" coastline .
Typical of the left wing claptrap we get in this country. If it wasnt for other countries being willing to stand up against tyrrany and oppression wyou wouldnt have the freedom to make your comments

And the Vietnamese, don't forget them. Sure, if America hadn't napalmed all those little Vietnamese kids, we'd all be speaking Vietnamese now.
And likewise thoee pesky Iraqis who were such a threat that none of their neighbouring states considered them a threat, and nor did Condi Rice.

And as for freedom of speech, tell that to Private Manning, in jail for letting the US public see what really goes on in a warzone, rather than the comic book version that you and others seem to be enthralled with.

You can throw yourself on your knees before the military might of the Pentagon all you like, there's plenty of people who know that wars are primarily motivated by resources.

Chuck de Mawl

newcavanman wrote: »

Have to agree with you, the simple fact is that countries lie Syria, and most of the other arab countries are not ready for democracy. Look at Libya and Tunisia, they may not have been great before, but to me, an ill informed westerner, they dont seem any better off now. Instead of a dictator, they now have mob rule, which, depending on your local mob, can be a very nasty thing

Great to see where your moral compass points. These countries could easily have democracy if not for the powerful vested interests. Any country with significant hydrocarbon resources, or along a pipeline route to such resources, is going to have interference from those who have no faith in changing governments and would rather a violent strong man to keep things favourable for a long time.

The likes of Karimov, of Uzbekistan, boiling people alive is overlooked, as were the worst crimes of Saddam, until his usefulness as an ally expired, then all his past crimes were trumpeted in the media and on discussion sites like this, as reason to go get that sweet Iraqi crude / liberate the Iraqi people, (tick as appropriate depending on your gullibility level).

urajoke

smurfjed wrote: »

So they get free enroute charges? Are you sure of that?

Yes military aircraft don't pay ATC charges full stop and not what was reported in the post after yours, that response should be in conspiracy theories.

andy_g

Back to the topic at hand please no need for the politics.

DieselPowered

andy_g wrote: »

Back to the topic at hand please no need for the politics.

Andy_g - you just got in there before me (and I'm not a mod )

andy_g

DieselPowered wrote: »

Andy_g - you just got in there before me (and I'm not a mod )

I dont like to lift the hammer but ya know if ya had of it would have been back seat modding

Anyway happy sunday all
Any who hows the weather back home?

DieselPowered

andy_g wrote: »

Any who hows the weather back home?

Weather is great here, plenty of flying, even the American's are coming in with some spooky stuff.;)

andy_g

getting spookies here in malta too and Armed Forces Of Malta (AFM) getting their new Typhoons

Joe 90

Chuck de Mawl wrote: »

Just another small example of the mentality at Shannon. Weapons (and who knows what else) out of sight out of mind... we all pretend that the aircrews are only out practising manouvres in peace time, and having a round of the black stuff afterwards.

Doesn't matter what that C17 or that MD11F is carrying, or who will be dead, injured or orphansed later.

However, any visible signs of what Shannon actually facilitates can smash the little mythology... and we don't want to think about that.

Sure our little country couldn't be culpable for any of that carnage... we just refuel them en route... and subsidise their travel through our airspace.

Subsidise? How and how much? I'm truly interested.

Chuck de Mawl

Joe 90 wrote: »

Subsidise? How and how much? I'm truly interested.

Not sure what the latest figures were, but at one stage it was over 3 million per year,that we were paying to the IAA (Irish Aviation Authority) for the ATC (Air Traffic Control) fees that the Minister waived under the 'reciprocal agreement' ... cos y'know our Air Corps flies through US airspace all the time..

It's not known who footed the bill for the extra security devices around stand 42, motion detectors and trembler wires.

And the Defence Forces and Garda security for US military related flights is not included in that 3.1 million figure.

You could ask your local TD to submit a parliamentary question if you're interested.

Joe 90

Joe 90 wrote: »

Subsidise? How and how much? I'm truly interested.

If you're truly interested, why'd you quote the whole post, political filler included? Is it that hard to remove the ideological blah blah from the quote?

Edit: thanks chuck for the straight answer.

Joe 90

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're truly interested, why'd you quote the whole post, political filler included? Is it that hard to remove the ideological blah blah from the quote?

Edit: thanks chuck for the straight answer.

What I meant was 'how are they subsidised?' I wasn't interested in the political bit,one way or the other.

EchoIndia

Chuck de Mawl wrote: »

You could ask your local TD to submit a parliamentary question if you're interested.

Which would also cost public money.

Chuck de Mawl

EchoIndia wrote: »

Which would also cost public money.

Small change compared to the expenditure. Given that the IAA bills the Govt for this, it wouldn't take a lot of digging to find the figure.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have spending controls because they cost money to implement?

smurfjed

You keep saying that the minister made a recipical agreement with the USA, but this isn't the case, look at the Eurocontrol website regarding charges:

Furthermore, Contracting State(s) may, in respect of the charging zone falling within their competence, exempt the following from payment of route charges:
snip...
military flights performed by the military aircraft of any State;
snip...
Where exemption is granted, the state concerned bears the cost which would otherwise be chargeable to the flights.

So it's actually an Eurocontrol procedure and that means that Ireland is doing the the same as other Eurocontrol members, rather than having a special agreement with the USA.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/establishing-route-charges will show you the full list of flights that are exempt from paying enroute navigation charges.

urajoke

smurfjed wrote: »

You keep saying that the minister made a recipical agreement with the USA, but this isn't the case, look at the Eurocontrol website regarding charges:

Furthermore, Contracting State(s) may, in respect of the charging zone falling within their competence, exempt the following from payment of route charges:

military flights performed by the military aircraft of any State;

Where exemption is granted, the state concerned bears the cost which would otherwise be chargeable to the flights.

So it's actually an Eurocontrol procedure and that means that Ireland is doing the the same as other Eurocontrol members, rather than having a special agreement with the USA.

http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/establishing-route-charges

I pointed that out at the start but it's far easier to ignore facts and make it appear that there is sonething illict and underhanded going on. It's far better to be truthful and produce facts supported with documentation especially if you want to increase your support base, people don't like being lied to.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, military flights worldwide are not charged for by any ATC service provider the same goes for AMBULANCE and HUMANITARIAN flights.