Someones is in trouble :P

[LCX]

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Pilot-delta-...-4955.html

[iflyfsx]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/airline...index.html


So we all have to take our shoes off at the airport and all that crap, but when an airplane deviates from a flight plan and does not respond to ATC, everything is cool. Maybe they are just distracted or asleep. No need to contact NORAD.

That kind of incompetence is astonishing, and I'd say, more serious than a pilot becoming distracted and causing an inconvenience. Sure, a pilot's distraction can be deadly, but what the hell is wrong with the system if an airplane goes "missing" and nothing is done about it for over an hour?



Post Edited ( 10-28-09 01:16 )

[AeroJim]

Everything was NOT cool, Madison, WI had jets on standby by ready to launch and escort and/or attack if necessary. ATC also made them perform several
awkward maneuvers to ensure that the plane had not been hi-jacked. At this point the pilots have both lose their licenses.

[iflyfsx]

Yes, they had jets on the ground. What good would that have done if the airplane had been hijacked?

What were they waiting for? They don't have to shoot the plane down, but they do have to get up there so they *can* do something about it, if necessary.

The unnecessary maneuvers were performed after they had contacted the airplane, when it was already overdue. i.e., if the plane had been hijacked,
there would have been no time or chance to ask them to do all those maneuvers, because they could have already hit something.

Too slow. Too late.

[timtomairways]

the air national guard was notified and had fighters on the runway. but i heard the one thing that kept them from takeing off was the fact
that the transponder was still functioning normally. in most hijackings the first thing done is to switch the transponder off

the manuzers is a procedure done to make shure the pilots have control of the aircraft

[iflyfsx]

"A senior U.S. official confirmed the review to CNN on Friday, but declined to be identified because both the military and FAA are reviewing the
entire matter, including the timeline in which the FAA notified the U.S. military of a potential problem with the flight. The official is directly
familiar with the timeline of the event."

"'My real question is why we did not know of the 'radio out' situation from the FAA sooner -- the FAA is also looking into that,' the official told CNN."

Sounds like a problem to me.

[AeroJim]

iflyfsx wrote:
Yes, they had jets on the ground. What good would that have done if the airplane had been hijacked?

What were they waiting for? They don't have to shoot the plane down, but they do have to get up there so they *can* do something about it, if necessary.

The unnecessary maneuvers were performed after they had contacted the airplane, when it was already overdue. i.e., if the plane had been hijacked,
there would have been no time or chance to ask them to do all those maneuvers, because they could have already hit something.

Too slow. Too late.

Standby means the jets were fired up and ready to go, considering they were what, maybe 100-150 nm from Madison AT most, more like 100ish, they could
be there within minutes. The unnecessary maneuvers were performed after contact had been re-established and the pilots claimed to be the original
pilots. It made perfect sense for the maneuvers to be performed.

Also, the plane simply continued on its' heading at the same altitude straight for 78 minutes, an EXTREMELY long time in real world aviation for a
commercial liner. I understand why you would say it was too slow and too late but the US gov't seems to have a good control on these situations now
and this was really well done on everyone's part. I think you're being overcritical.

[iflyfsx]

Losing communications with an a320 for 78 minutes, and not doing anything about it, is having things under control?

I can't agree with that.

[timtomairways]

i would have scrambeled thoues fighters personaly.

but then i am not th one who makes that desition

[Anastasios]

AeroJim wrote:
The unnecessary maneuvers were performed after contact had been re-established and the pilots claimed to be the original
pilots. It made perfect sense for the maneuvers to be performed.

That's EXACTLY what iflyfsx said.

They are investigating the incident and after that investigation we can really tell if they did everything right.

But for now, I have to agree with most people, that it looks like they underestimated the situation.

Anastasios.

[AeroJim]

The point was the maneuvers were necessary for ATC to determine if the original PIC was still in control. Everyone keeps saying that this occured to
slowly, the plane was at what, 35k-37k feet and never once descended, if they were planning on hitting something they would've started a descent at
some point. If they were also planning on hitting something it is VERY doubtful they would've continued past MSP at 35k feet and head towards
Northwestern WI and the UP of MI (Joe has flown up there, he can attest that unless they were planning on putting a temporary water fountain in Lake
Superior or a new clear cut in the woods they didn't have much to hit)

I mean we can all agree that a plane that has been hijacked rarely:
A) Keeps transponder on and running
and
B) Keeps Altitude, Speed, and Heading all the same

I mean if they underestimated the situation then the plane would've been hijacked or worse, and they were right in estimating that something was wrong
on the aircraft but it didn't need military intervention so really, it wasn't underestimated at all.

[iflyfsx]

The point was the maneuvers were necessary for ATC to determine if the original PIC was still in control. Everyone keeps saying that this
occured to slowly, the plane was at what, 35k-37k feet and never once descended, if they were planning on hitting something they would've started a
descent at some point.

If they had been hijacked and wanted to hit something, they could have descended from 37000 ft very quickly, much sooner that it would take to
intercept the airplane.

If you have to intercept an airplane, you don't fool around trying to communicate with it and making it do unnecessary maneuvers, and THEN get the
fighters in the air. You intercept the airplane first, and then find out what you need to do with it.

Or are they just trying to save fuel?

And you don't wait to contact the FAA.

Isn't the airport expecting this airplane? The communication should start way before the flight is overdue. If the airplane is approaching and you
can't communicate with it, you have a problem right there and then, not an hour later.

And no one on the airplane was asking questions? I expect to start descending half an hour before arrival. If we are still going and I don't hear
anything from the captain, I don't think I would wait an hour to ask what's going on.

[AeroJim]

Most passengers don't know what is going on. . .the reason why the pilots notice something was wrong was because a flight attendant called and asked
why there weren't descending. Most passengers are not very aviation savvy so no, they wouldn't ask questions. Also. . . you keep mentioning "if they
wanted to hit somoething" they were in NW Wisconsin . ..there is nothing to hit. . . Also. . . .they didn't know if they had to intercept, they just
wanted to reestablish contact, this plane showed no symptoms of a normal hijacked plane. . . .

[AnsettAddict123]

lol, such an oversight... but it makes us all ask, why did this happen in the first place...

the excuse of using laptops seems a bit sus/pathetic. two trained pilots cannot simply overfly their destination and ignore radio contact
making the military believe that the aircraft had been hijacked and use the excuse "we forgot".

seriously!

in fsx im more attentive than that, besides if i overfly and run late my virtual passengers yell at me:P

[timtomairways]

i think they probly should have sayed they where asleep.

then they would have an excusse