A rare display of idiocy. Thats what happens, when the tail wags with the dog.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with previous statements. UK CAA rarely prosecutes as evidenced on the CAA website.
Post 9/11 the need for maintaining radio contact is abundantly clear.
There seems to be a lot missing from this story. Were they not responding to radio calls? Was there some sort of radio issue? Did they just miss a handoff (or did ATC forget to give them a handoff - I’ve had that happen to me)? Were they monitoring 121.5 (is that universal, or just here in the US)?
This rule sure seems counter to “aviate, navigate, communicate”.
Numerous times on IFR flights I have had to say “ATC are you still there” in US after not hearing anything in a while. Occasionally have had to look up the sector freq to re-establish comms. Scrambling interceptor jets? Seems like a wicked over-reaction. Maybe part of the reason there is very limited GA in Europe.
2 replies
There are lot of reasons that could account for that, none specified in the article.
But as an Aviation safety specialist, this greatly degades aviation safety in the EU.
This is ignoring everything we have learned on aviation safety in the last 40 years.
There are a lot of reasons for a lost communication. None were specified in the article.
But this also ignores 40 years the industry has learned about aviation safety. And shows the CAA has absolutely no interest in safer skies.
It just took aviation safety back a couple dozen decades.
The EU is very anti GA.
And while intercepts might be an appropriate action. The prosecution is not.
This is very anti aviation safety and shows the EU cares little about safety and more about authoritarianism.
2 replies
A lot missing here. Why did UK ATC not call his company dispatch and have them send an ACARs message to make contact with ATC? That is cheaper than scrambling fighters. What about a selcal attempt?
As to using 121.5 it works most the time but in the UK they seem to be very abusive of 121.5. I hear it being used for routine tasks that should go over to a discrete frequency. It is annoying beyond all reason and defeats the purpose of ears being alert when a 121.5 broadcast is received. Most places 121.5 is “guard” in the UK I call it “common”.
1 reply
Here in the US as well, unfortunately. I tried monitoring it during an ~2hr flight and after an hour of hearing airlines asking for missed frequencies, meows, and “you’re on guaaaaard”, I had to turn it off because it was too much of a distraction.
Nonsense; this was a scheduled commercial airline flight from Oslo to Manchester.
1 reply
UK became the most monitored country during “the troubles” with the IRA frequently setting off bombs. As for TSA (and their cousins in various countries), I’m not a fan of their all powerful attitude but clearly they’re needed in the US. Thousands of weapons are seized annually.
Indeed. There’s a surprising range of comments here that completely miss the mark.
It was not a GA flight. It was on an IFR flight plan. It was a passenger airliner. It flew - internationally - into the UK ADIZ without speaking on the radio for more than half an hour. I know it was a few years ago, but does nobody remember 9/11?
Fortunately the airliner did not make any sudden changes of course, and continued to the intended destination. It is likely that, if it had done anything else, the RAF interceptors were authorised to shoot it down.
In court, the Captain plead “Guilty” to the charges and was fined - not all that much considering the possible outcomes.
As others said, seems like something missing here. Did anyone try to contact them? Wouldn’t scramble fighters until confirmed no radio contact.
Retired UK air traffic controller speaking. The UK is not the wild west. We treat safety seriously – just look at the recent spate of incidents and accidents that have occurred in the “free” USA. If an aircraft approaches UK airspace without making radio contact the response will always be to scramble QRA fighters. Especially from the direction of the evil empire that is east of us. It is only right that the law is applied and a fine levied. No one was “jailed” and the flight was not VFR it was operating on an IFR flight plan. I do despair of a former respected country and its current scary approach to aviation safety and world affairs.
2 replies
If you think the Brits are punitive, try messing around with the USA TSA. Minimum fines for any violation are $5140, with the maximum being $42,657. Let that soak in for awhile the next time you forget to do something. Even if you’re a GA pilot, you’re under their microscope if you happen to land at an airport with any passenger service.
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to equate “prosecuting a pilot for radio silence” with the recent spate of incidents in the US. None of them have really been a result of lax rules (perhaps questionably-designed airspace, in the case of the DC issue, but not rules).
And yes, they will (and do) indeed scramble jets here as well when there is an unresponsive aircraft.
‘Radio Silence’ - YEP!..That’ll happen when you turn down the radio volume!
Just a guess but I wonder if both pilots fell asleep.
Most countries require prior radio notification when entering another country’s ADIZ. This goes for overflights as well. My guess is this crew forgot to make the radio notification prior to entering this ADIZ. This is a requirement for entering a US ADIZ also. There are fines for not making this call prior to entering a US ADIZ, along with possible escort or rejection of IFR clearance into US airspace.
At FL300 VFR is not possible. Hard to believe that aircraft entered and landed at Manchester without contacting ATC?
Of course, if this had been an actual hijacking and ATC had not reacted to the lack of communication, this forum would be full of comments about how the government can’t do anything right,
As a retired US controller, I feel that despair also UK. Don’t give up on us yet…I hope.
Wasn’t a GA flight bud
I sometimes wonder if some of the responders to these stories actually read and process the whole picture. This was an airliner flown by a professional crew on an IFR flight plan in a part of the world where the nearest hot war is less than an hour’s flight away. The crew does not communicate with ATC before entering into a country’s airspace. Yes, they have to scramble the fighters to intercept this aircraft! It’s too bad it happened, but the response makes perfectly good sense to me.
And the captain did plead guilty. He knew.
1 reply
Try flying in to Florida from the Bahamas radio silent. You will meet some special friends and a fine may be in the offing as well.
I think some of the commenters are missing the point here. I don’t think the argument is whether a non-responsive aircraft entering an ADIZ shouldn’t be intercepted. To me, the question is why weren’t they communicating? Was it something out of their control (radio failure, failed handoff, etc), or was it more like that Northwest airliner a number of years ago in the US that flew past their destination because they were both distracted by a discussion they were having?
Also, a guilty plea doesn’t necessarily mean that they agree they were at fault - often people wil plea guilty out of expediency (e.g. they can’t afford a prolonged legal fight, or the prosecution offers a plea deal significantly lighter than they would persue in court).
I’ll start by saying I’m asking for education on this…I would venture I’m the least knowledgeable on this given I’m not a pilot, just an aviation “lurker” if you will…LOL
Several of you have mentioned the pilot entering the UK ADIZ during the period of radio silence. My question is…where does it indicate that in the article? Here’s what’s going through my head as a novice…
If I look for a ticket right now for Oslo to Manchester the shortest flight time is 2 hours. Could the aircraft have been silent on the radio for more than 30 minutes (hence the charges), but still have contacted ATC upon entering the UK ADIZ? In other words, why does the 30 minute window of silence have to have overlapped with the portion of the flight in the UK AZID?
Now I realize that the UK scrambled the fighters, but will a nation only scramble fighters within their AZID? I’m thinking of a oceanic flight coming in toward Maine in this country. If someone had been radio silent enough to worry the controllers, but hadn’t yet entered either the US or Canada airspace, I can see how either or both countries might scramble fighters…just in case.
I guess I’m just asking how the jump was made by so many commenters that the 30 minute radio silence HAD to be while the plane entered the UK AZID, when the article doesn’t explicitly say that.
Many uninformed comments are worrisome. For those non pilots please understand that once an air carrier flight which had filed an IFR flight plan becomes airborne, that flight plan is submitted to all ATC on the route of flight as well as the destination. In addition it is most likely that the aircraft was sqwawking the last issued transponder code. Also I would assume that ADS-B out was operating. All regulatory agencies therefore knew which aircraft they were tracking, its position, its altitude, its destination and its ETA. In the absence of COMs, ATC had to only provide seperation for the aircraft with which they had voice contact. No big deal and certainly no need for military interception! 10,000 tt, COM., SMELSES, A&P/IA
l
1 reply
Maybe. No comms, even on track, could well indicate the crew is under duress or worse. Back in the day KBWI either forgot to hand me off or I never heard it, I was dead center over KDCA when I called them and enquired if it was about time to change frequencies and they were a bit put out. I mentioned that maybe a handoff and readback would be good in the future.
Post 9/11 that would be a whole different thing 
As long as flight was progressing according to flight plan I don’t think there should be reason for panic. When it it deviated then there would be a problem?
1 reply
Out of interest what are your aviating credentials; pilot, ATC, mechanic, or plane spotter?
The reason there is little GA in Europe is a system designed to bring GA aviation accidents to zero which is achieved by eliminating GA. As they like to say, “It is for your safety”. However if one is rich enough to pay all the ridiculous “safety” fees then GA is ok because of the revenue collected by the overstaffed and overpaid aviation bureaucracies.
Few pilots will agree with your disagreement. The aircraft has a transponder and the past has required using a hijack code if there is a hijack.
This penalty is excessive, without question.
In that case they would have to land ?
