Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rendition flights through Ireland

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,370 ✭✭✭b757


    Are you a member of Shannon Watch? :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,577 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    I'll leave it here for now, though I'm unsure of the motives behind it. If it goes into a debate about US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. it's getting closed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 472 ✭✭folbotcar


    Whatever about rendition flights going through Shannon did anyone here who spends time around airfields spot unusual aircraft coming in to or going out of Shannon?
    That's why enthusiasts go to Shannon, to spot unusual aircraft. There's only so many times you can photograph the same Ryanair/Aer Lingus bird and keep your enthusiasm.

    As for rendition. I'm very dubious that anyone was ever 'renditioned' through Shannon to the US. It wouldn't make sense. Most rendition flights were routed to and from other countries so there would be no need to route through Shannon. Apart from anything else there's the security risk if the aircraft went tech at Shannon for any reason. I would have thought that anytime it stopped in Shannon was just for fuel while empty of 'cargo'.

    Also it's worth pointing out that in the article it mentions the GV is now operated by the US Marshall Service. Con-Air if you will. Moving prisoners around not kidnapping terrorists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭bkehoe


    unusually high altitude of 45,000 feet.

    Completely and totally normal for this type of aircraft. Some biz jets regularly go as high as 51,000 feet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    The article also states "It had not filed a flight plan, and was flying above the level at which air traffic control reporting is mandatory", but then helpfully provides a link to the flight plan data on Flightaware! UK ATC extends to FL660 (66,000 feet) so the aircraft would certainly have been under Scottish air traffic control. Formal position reporting is little used in modern radar environments, after initial check-in with the relevant ATC facility.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 64 ✭✭CNTRLR


    hold on in 2006 most lads in business jets were in for golfing or a lads weekend away....that and FF politicians heading to the states for a week or 2..
    and the flying above FL660 you would need some serious radiation suits as exposure rate that high would be killing the prisoners and all the rest onboard for that matter, never mind getting them to cuba...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 228 ✭✭Phil_Lives


    http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/21/1/003

    re: radiation
    control f for "concorde" and read about annual doses.


Advertisement