Big777jet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Air Traffic controllers did a good job to caught Delta's plane did not respond their transponder. Read this news:
Delta Flight Escorted Back To Atlanta By Fighter Jets
Jan 11, 2002
A Delta Air Lines MD-88 plane was escorted back to Atlanta Airport by two National Guard fighter jets after the plane's transponder malfunctioned shortly after taking off.
Details: http://news.airwise.com/display/story.html?name=2002/01/1010779679.html
A330300 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1494 times:
Delta Flight Escorted Back To Atlanta By Fighter Jets
Jan 11, 2002
A Delta Air Lines MD-88 plane was escorted back to Atlanta Airport by two National Guard fighter jets after the plane's transponder malfunctioned shortly after taking off.
The Washington-bound jetliner was intercepted by F-16 jets about 15 minutes after it took off, according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command in Colorado.
It landed at Hartsfield about 10 minutes later. All nine passengers were booked on other flights to Washington's Reagan National Airport.
The transponder sends information about a plane's identity, altitude, speed and direction to air traffic controllers. Controllers have been particularly sensitive about transponder data since the September 11 hijackings, when terrorists switched off the transponders before crashing.
During Friday's incident, the Delta pilots were in continuous communication with air traffic controllers, Delta spokeswoman Peggy Estes said.
She said the problem was determined to be a malfunction and the plane was being repaired and would be returned to service.
The FAA requested the jet escort at 8 a.m., said Marine Corp. Maj. Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman. The fighter jets were sent from Robins Air Force Base, south of Macon.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1458 times:
It doesn't make sense, a cessna that comes 1000 feet from a WN 737 and crosses over US Central Command isn't considered a "threat", but this is...
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6195 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
Sounds like a waste of taxpayer's money.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
EWR757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 360 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1344 times:
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
Nine. Probably all the more reason for authorities to give this incident so much attention. Remember, all four 9/11 aircraft were way under capacity. Less passengers to fight back. I think this was an appropraite response.
PanAm, you saw how much damage a little 172 did compared to what 767's did.
Another thing, 1,000 ft separation? that's pretty much standard separation distance from aircraft close to an airport anyway. Yet another example of media sensationalism.
Cba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
Unless the terrorists had connections inside the airlines, there is no way they would know the loads of the flights in advance.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 41 Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1286 times:
Remember, all four 9/11 aircraft were way under capacity. Less passengers to fight back.
um... no passengers to fight back?
Couldn't this incident have been a threat, because if the ATC are unaware of the aircrafts position, the chance of a midair collision could bee quite high. Especially when the ATCO has to remember what the pilots have told him and then match it up on his screen.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
Cba:
Of course they didn't know exactly how many the passengers there would be on the flight, but tuesday is probably the day with the lowest load factors. Most of the pax go out on a Monday and return later in the week, that's why they choosed a tuesday.
GOT
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Tom775257 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
"Couldn't this incident have been a threat, because if the ATC are unaware of the aircrafts position, the chance of a midair collision could bee quite high. "
ATC can still see the aircraft on primary radar without a transponder, however not on secondary radar (which interrogates the transponder)
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
Boeing nut-
Would you consider a 763 circling the White House less of a threat than a 744 doing the same thing?
The point is, in both cases you have an unnauthorized plane flying around large cities and in the cessna case, over a base that was controlling Ops in Afghanistan.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
242 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 498 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1115 times:
The MD88 involved in the incident was the test mule for the anti-hijack transponder system. This aircraft is equipped with a switch on either side of the cockpit that when thrown, causes the transponder to transmit the hi-jack code exclusively while disabling the control head.
The switches are saftied with copper break-away wire to prevent inadvertant activation. When the plane was inspected back in ATL, the copper wire was broken on the F/Os side.
You can draw your own conclusion, maybe this was supposed to be a real-life test of the system. IMHO, I think it was a case of "Hmmm... I wonder what this does?" on behalf of the F/O.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
