Military Aircraft "stalks" AC842 A330

vicwatson

Anyone know anything on this? Flightradar playback?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/shocked-passenger-reported-military-jet-stalking-irishbound-plane-36313178.html

goingnowhere

Its not unknown for practice interceptions to take place

Port side, is the left side and thats the side you are intercepted from

There is a very rare photo taken from a RAF jet after intercepting a Concorde on the left side, RAF jet had to give up after a few minutes as it was out of gas

faoiarvok

goingnowhere wrote: »

Its not unknown for practice interceptions to take place

Port side, is the left side and thats the side you are intercepted from

I expect the ACA pilots would have been made aware also, unless it was a loss of comms that led to the interception.

GBX

goingnowhere wrote: »

Its not unknown for practice interceptions to take place

Port side, is the left side and thats the side you are intercepted from

There is a very rare photo taken from a RAF jet after intercepting a Concorde on the left side, RAF jet had to give up after a few minutes as it was out of gas

This one? Only photo of the concord at Mach 2

goingnowhere

Thats the one, very rare photo at mach 2

mikel97

LOL
Me thinks that Irish guy spent the flight watching the winglet.
I came across atlantic recent and at 4am its pitch black.

Too much Guinness Im afraid.

martinsvi

goingnowhere wrote: »

Its not unknown for practice interceptions to take place

Port side, is the left side and thats the side you are intercepted from

There is a very rare photo taken from a RAF jet after intercepting a Concorde on the left side, RAF jet had to give up after a few minutes as it was out of gas

are you sure you meant practice interception? Or target recognition exercise? I'm not going to dig through my notes now but I clearly remember from my ATPL studies that it is a big no-no to practice interceptions on civilian aircraft unless the exercise is planned and briefed between all involved before hand .. target identification exercise on the other hand means the military can chase you up to verify your colors and type, but once done so, they have to break off

Negative_G

Military aircraft can and do routinely intercept civil traffic in various jurisdiction's. It would be more common for corporate jet traffic to be intercepted than airliner's though.

Generally there are plenty of non passenger carrying military aircraft transitting FIRs should a native QRF wish to carry out a training interception.

PinOnTheRight

mikel97 wrote: »

LOL
Me thinks that Irish guy spent the flight watching the winglet.
I came across atlantic recent and at 4am its pitch black.

Too much Guinness Im afraid.

I'm equally skeptical. Middle of the night on the North Atlantic, how do you spot and determine a single engine aircraft with no lights on, even under moonlight? Plus I can't see mil jets buzzing around on training sorties in the middle of Gander or Shanwick Oceanic.

martinsvi

Negative_G wrote: »

Military aircraft can and do routinely intercept civil traffic in various jurisdiction's. It would be more common for corporate jet traffic to be intercepted than airliner's though.

Generally there are plenty of non passenger carrying military aircraft transitting FIRs should a native QRF wish to carry out a training interception.

are you saying that practice intercepts involving civilian commercial transport indeed happen and/or are allowed by ICAO/other regulatory bodies?

martinsvi

As per ICAO Doc 9433:

Principles to be observed by States
# 2.5 To achieve the uniformity in regulations which is necessary for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft, due
regard shall be had by Contracting States to the following principles when developing regulations and administrative
directives:
a) interception of civil aircraft will be undertaken only as a last resort;
b) if undertaken, an interception will be limited to determining the identity of the aircraft, unless it is necessary to
return the aircraft to its planned track, direct it beyond the boundaries of national airspace, guide it away from a
prohibited, restricted or danger area or instruct it to effect a landing at a designated aerodrome;
c) practice interception of civil aircraft will not be undertaken;
...

pepe the prawn

GBX wrote: »

This one? Only photo of the concord at Mach 2

I love that picture, however, I watched a documentary recently in which former Concorde pilot and highly respected aviator John Hutchinson said that to his knowledge there was no picture ever taken of Concorde at Mach 2, and when asked about this particular picture, he believed that whilst it may have been supersonic, he doesn’t believe it was at Mach 2.

As an aside, I’m just finishing a book about his life entitled “The wind beneath my wings”, I would highly recommend it, a brilliant read.

Negative_G

martinsvi wrote: »

are you saying that practice intercepts involving civilian commercial transport indeed happen and/or are allowed by ICAO/other regulatory bodies?

Has it happened? Yes.

Can I prove it to you? No.

You believe what you want.

I mean this in the nicest way possible but just because you read an ICAO doc or can recite something from the ATPL syllabus doesn't mean that it is gospel. It is getting rather tiresome to be honest. It isn't always black and white.

Stovepipe

The whole point of interception protocol is to prevent accidental shootdowns, ie, KAL 007 and to allow military aircraft to intercept aircraft in trouble; ie, the Payne Stewart event or to make sure that aircraft don't enter military range areas, if there is a live fire exercise going on. They do practice it and by and large, ask nicely first.

martinsvi

Negative_G wrote: »

Has it happened? Yes.

Can I prove it to you? No.

You believe what you want.

I mean this in the nicest way possible but just because you read an ICAO doc or can recite something from the ATPL syllabus doesn't mean that it is gospel. It is getting rather tiresome to be honest. It isn't always black and white.

Your willingness to dismiss laws and regulations in favor of your experience says nothing good about your resource management skills or attitude towards safety.

If you are a captain or ever wish to become one, I would sincerely advise you to change your attitude towards inexperienced people trying to raise valid concerns. If you have stories to tell from your own experience, I would be more than willing to read them as long as you can share them without taking a poo on other people knowledge. I honestly hope your attitude in flight deck is more supportive and encouraging, otherwise one fine day you may end up on the side of the mountain and the public here on boards will wonder why the guy next to you said nothing..

martinsvi

Stovepipe wrote: »

The whole point of interception protocol is to prevent accidental shootdowns, ie, KAL 007 and to allow military aircraft to intercept aircraft in trouble; ie, the Payne Stewart event or to make sure that aircraft don't enter military range areas, if there is a live fire exercise going on. They do practice it and by and large, ask nicely first.

when you say - "they", I would really like to know what do you mean? USAF? RAF? Russians? I've been taught and told by experienced RAF instructors that for them it's a big no no for bunch of different reasons, starting from the ICAO docs all the way down to liability and insurance issues.. if you are sharing your own experience or knowledge it wouldn't hurt adding a bit more facts to it

Negative_G

martinsvi wrote: »

Your willingness to dismiss laws and regulations in favor of your experience says nothing good about your resource management skills or attitude towards safety.

If you are a captain or ever wish to become one, I would sincerely advise you to change your attitude towards inexperienced people trying to raise valid concerns. If you have stories to tell from your own experience, I would be more than willing to read them as long as you can share them without taking a poo on other people knowledge. I honestly hope your attitude in flight deck is more supportive and encouraging, otherwise one fine day you may end up on the side of the mountain and the public here on boards will wonder why the guy next to you said nothing..

You are missing the point. I'm not dismissing laws or regulations whatsoever.

I am simply saying that just because something is written down somewhere doesn't mean that it does not happen or has not ever happened. This is the reality in aviation as in many other walks of life and is pertinent to the article raised by the OP. This 'notion', rightly or wrongly, is more likely to manifest itself outside of a training environment which is lilely why the concept seems so abhorrent to you. Having this opinion doesn't amount to the 'cowboy attitude' narrative that you were desperately trying to convey either.

I have no problem engaging with anyone regardless of the level of experience. I am less likely to engage in semantics amounting to "but it says here that XYZ can't be done so prove otherwise". I have neither the time nor inclination to go around in circles.

As for the end of your post - Don't be so dramatic.

martinsvi

fair enough, but I do feel like you're missing my point also. I repeatedly asked you and others to, instead of just invalidating my statements by mentioning real world etc, but to actually share the events or circumstances that have happened to you or your colleagues... this never happens. Is it that hard for you to say, for example- it was 1997, I was overflying Germany, saw this an that ... it would put your posts into a completely different light!

Here I am quoting what the laws say, but time and time again someone steps in behaving pretty much like a 5 year old sticking out a tongue and making helicopter sounds.. contribute, please! You are saying that the laws are broken, I say - that's an interesting enough topic to elaborate a little bit more, isn't it?

faoiarvok

There’s also the greyish area of military aviation not being governed by civil aviation regulations, as well as countries differing from ICAO Standards (I don’t know if this is an example of that, but it does happen)

martinsvi

faoiarvok wrote: »

There’s also the greyish area of military aviation not being governed by civil aviation regulations, as well as countries differing from ICAO Standards (I don’t know if this is an example of that, but it does happen)

let me cut the fat out of my own comments:
the law says practice intercepts are not allowed and the RAF instructors are saying that it's a no no.

You're saying - it does happen, real world is different, "they" do it anyway..

All I'm asking is - who's they? Where, when and why? I'm not even asking for evidence or anything like that.. just cut the hearsay and stick to real events that you are aware of!

enlighten me!

faoiarvok

martinsvi wrote: »

You're saying - it does happen, real world is different, "they" do it anyway..

My comment may have been unclear, I don't know if practice interceptions happen, I meant that countries differing from ICAO Standards in their national regulations happens.

martinsvi

faoiarvok wrote: »

My comment may have been unclear, I don't know if practice interceptions happen, I meant that countries differing from ICAO Standards in their national regulations happens.

that is true, and when such differences are made, they need to be announced in the national AIP. that's why I'm pressing for more information to get the full picture..

Stovepipe

I do know, from conversations with the relevant pilots , that even our Fuerza practised in the days of the Fougas, but obviously this was limited by their slow speed. I assume that the RAF were able to practise on their own large aircraft such as the Tristar and VC10 and C130. The USAF have had it down to a fine art since 9-11.Every airliner has to carry the Interception Instructions as standard and Im assuming the Military do the same.

bkehoe

PinOnTheRight wrote: »

I'm equally skeptical. Middle of the night on the North Atlantic, how do you spot and determine a single engine aircraft with no lights on, even under moonlight? Plus I can't see mil jets buzzing around on training sorties in the middle of Gander or Shanwick Oceanic.

Many things don't add up. 4AM in what time zone as well??
Probably just a biz jet. Reduced lateral spacing is allowed in the North Atlantic area these days.

My prediction; a biz jet 1000ft below/above on a different offset off the same track. All aircraft in NAT-HLA airspace should perform a technique called SLOP which means they offset themselves from the defined track by 0 (i.e. fly the track) 1 or 2 miles to the right with most traffic choosing 1 or 2 miles.

Victor

Stovepipe wrote: »

The whole point of interception protocol is to prevent accidental shootdowns, ie, KAL 007 and to allow military aircraft to intercept aircraft in trouble

Maybe it was a real interception, although single engine might be an issue.

NewSigGuy

Practice intercepts against military aircraft transiting FIR's can happen occasionally, our CN-235's and the LR-45 have been asked and have allowed a practice intercept.

Practice intercepts against commercial aircraft are not allowed, intercepts happen very occasionally when an aircraft has missed radio calls for an extended period of time.

With regards to the story, you have to ask what single engine fighter could possibly be Mid-Atlantic and tracking an airliner...

smurfjed

Oops, taken from the Mig-29's that intercepted this aircraft over Indonesia, they forced it to land. The aircraft had ATC overflight clearance but didn't revise its military clearance for an early departure.

In my part of the world it is common to hear on guard, XXX you are entering YYY airspace, identify yourself or you will be intercepted, these words really do focus your mind on where you are.