If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"nobody" wrote:
Plane declares hijack. . . . Then, the pilots confirm verbally that there is no hijacking taking place, but are unable to reset the switch. I'm confused. My understanding (someone please correct me if I'm wrong?) was that once an aircraft's transponder has been set -- even momentarily -- to "squawk" the hijack code (7500), a hijacking is presumed to be in progress regardless of any subsequent changing of the code or statements by the flight crew. (This, AFAIK, is so that a hijacker can't cancel the alert by resetting the transponder or forcing the crew to claim it was just a mistake and all is well.) So plane lands in Halifax, they spend time working out the glitch. Do we know yet exactly what the "glitch" was? Was the aircraft equipped with a switch -- separate from the regular transponder controls -- that, if activated, would force the unit to squawk 7500 regardless of the settings on the dials? If so, perhaps this switch failed in an "on" position, was accidentally bumped, etc., and the "squawk 7500" functionality was locked. Or did the pilot or co-pilot accidentally turn through 7500 while resetting the transponder, one digit at a time, to a new code? (I understood pilots were supposedly trained to be very careful =not= to do that, but . . . .) Rich Wales http://www.richw.org |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Rich Wales wrote: "nobody" wrote: Plane declares hijack. . . . Then, the pilots confirm verbally that there is no hijacking taking place, but are unable to reset the switch. I'm confused. You are responding to "nobody" aka the infamous "JF Mezei" troll of rec.travel.air. He *absolutely* does not know what he is talking about this or any other subject.... -- Best Greg |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith wrote: Tchiowa wrote: If you trusted the ability of US fighter pilots and their command structure to direct the plane to, say, Bangor Maine (presumably a place with not a lot of tall buildings) then this wouldn't be an issue. Any attempt to fly beyond Bangor, then shoot them down. Plenty of time to do that. Object is to get the plane out of the air as quickly as possible. Not let it fly around to various countries to do it. It was a London to NY flight. It had nothing to do with Canada. We should have kept out fighters on the ground and let the US deal with it. The fighters were dispathced from NORAD command, a joint US-Canada venture designed to protect North American space.... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane | mrtravel | Air travel | 29 | June 8th, 2005 05:05 PM |
Canadian fighter jets sent to intercept British plane | mrtravel | Europe | 10 | June 8th, 2005 05:05 PM |
Passport Guarantor - Qualified Engineers NO,Unqualified Bookkeepers YES!! Beware Canadian Passport Holders! | Adenoid Heinkel | USA & Canada | 0 | November 15th, 2004 10:10 PM |
Passport Guarantor - Qualified Engineers NO,Unqualified Bookkeepers YES!! Beware Canadian Passport Holders! | Adenoid Heinkel | Europe | 0 | November 15th, 2004 10:10 PM |
Documents required for entry into Canada | Ted Elston | USA & Canada | 0 | May 3rd, 2004 03:09 PM |