View Single Post
Old 23rd July 2007, 11:44 PM   #396
gumboot's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

A-train you have previously been shown, in this very thread, that your claims above are categorically false. The FAA Hijacking Protocols were amended after 9/11 to include loss of transponder, change of course, and loss of communication. On 9/11 an FAA ARTCC controller was not to consider an aircraft hijacked unless it squawked 7500. You know this. You have had the pertinent FAA regulations shown to you. Please cease your lies.


O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.

A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top