# Armed CF18s scramble to shadow jet with bomb threat.



## SeanNewman (15 May 2010)

Two sources:

CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/15/bc-plane-military-escort.html

CF-18s respond to airline bomb threat
Last Updated: Saturday, May 15, 2010
CBC News

Canadian Forces fighter jets escorted an airliner to Vancouver International Airport on Saturday afternoon following a bomb threat, Defence Department officials said.

Two armed CF-18 Hornets escorted Cathay Pacific flight 838, bound for Vancouver from Hong Kong, to the airport in Richmond, B.C. It landed safely at about 1:30 p.m. PT.

(Rest of story on CBC link)

CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/15/canada.flight.threat/index.html?hpt=T1

What is really fascinating are the posts at the bottom of the CNN link; it turns into a US vs Canada p!ssing contest.  Very sad.


----------



## Snakedoc (16 May 2010)

Nothing to read too much into but you're right that the comments at the bottom of the CNN page are truly sad..


----------



## Jammer (16 May 2010)

Screw 'em!
Well done to the Air Force!


----------



## heavygunner (16 May 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Screw 'em!



Agreed.


----------



## burnaby (17 May 2010)

heavygunner said:
			
		

> Agreed.



second that.

There was one thing that the article didn't say was if worse come to worse who will have the authority to shoot down the passenger plane? http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?category=News&zone=canada&site=cbc.news.ca&clipid=1495978799 In the video it said the only the PM have the authority. My question is if the situation changed suddenly and whoever is in charge on the ground decided the shoot order was necessary and the PM was unable (unwilling) to give a "go" order to shoot or if the PM can not be reached can the military commander at the scene give the order? Or do he or she still have to ask some up high like the Chief of the Defence Staff or even the Commander-in-Chief.


----------



## SeanNewman (17 May 2010)

There are more than likely two different answers to the question you just posed:

1. If the PM is available, and "unwilling" as you stated, that is the end of the story.  No rogue general would say "Well the PM doesn't have the balls to do this, so I'm giving authorization to _____ ".  Maybe you just didn't word it the best when you stated "willing".  If he weighs the factors and does not say "yes", then it's not yes.

2. If the PM is *not* available to make a decision in time (ie, something is imminent) then there is likely a process in place for many different scenarios that allow for the decision to be deligated to X level.


----------



## TimBit (17 May 2010)

The sortie was more than likely flown under the standing Operation Noble Eagle ROE's. Under this op there are chains of authority established. NORAD maintains a  board with the locations of all those people on the list, so that they can be reached if needs be. None of that is secret and can be seen on many videos on youtube and or NORAD web site.


----------



## gaspasser (18 May 2010)

Excellent on our Air Force's part for responding to a possible threat. whether real or imagined. Some people say we have a knee jerk reaction to many things, but then there's that one time.....
As for the responses at CNN, I think that SGTWoodcock is a proud supporter of any military an the service they provide.
As for the comments, good or bad, about our Repatrications, at least we Canadians give closure to the families of our Fallen and show our Respect for the Soldier's Dtduty.  Unlike the Americans {some} who have to have security at the funerals against the protesters.

 for our Fallen.  
 Proud to be.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> CNN:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/05/15/canada.flight.threat/index.html?hpt=T1
> 
> What is really fascinating are the posts at the bottom of the CNN link; it turns into a US vs Canada p!ssing contest.  Very sad.


Unfortunately, not the first time comment zones following online stories have become the domain of "the mentals" (in the words of a BBC comedy podcast).

Well done to all involved


----------



## VIChris (18 May 2010)

A friend of mine was on that flight. She said there was no indication from the cockpit that anything was up, and that the stewardesses didn't seem to know anything about it either. Most people on the flight reacted very calmly, and many were taking pictures, and waving at the pilots. It wasn't until they touched down that it was made known something was up. 

I wonder why the jets would make their presence known, if they aren't going to tell the passengers anything? I'm not saying the passengers should be notified, as that could potentially force the hand of a would-be attacker, but why not have the escort trail back out of passenger sight? Do they need to get a visual on the cockpit or something?


----------



## bdave (18 May 2010)

VIChris said:
			
		

> Do they need to get a visual on the cockpit or something?



Yes.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

burnaby said:
			
		

> second that.
> 
> There was one thing that the article didn't say was if worse come to worse who will have the authority to shoot down the passenger plane? http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?category=News&zone=canada&site=cbc.news.ca&clipid=1495978799 In the video it said the only the PM have the authority. My question is if the situation changed suddenly and whoever is in charge on the ground decided the shoot order was necessary and the PM was unable (unwilling) to give a "go" order to shoot or if the PM can not be reached can the military commander at the scene give the order? Or do he or she still have to ask some up high like the Chief of the Defence Staff or even the Commander-in-Chief.



There is a procedure in place for making sure that a properly appointed elected official makes the decision.  Youd have to get rid of a lot of MPs before it came down to a decision from just the CDS...


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

VIChris said:
			
		

> A friend of mine was on that flight. She said there was no indication from the cockpit that anything was up, and that the stewardesses didn't seem to know anything about it either. Most people on the flight reacted very calmly, and many were taking pictures, and waving at the pilots. It wasn't until they touched down that it was made known something was up.
> 
> I wonder why the jets would make their presence known, if they aren't going to tell the passengers anything? I'm not saying the passengers should be notified, as that could potentially force the hand of a would-be attacker, but why not have the escort trail back out of passenger sight? Do they need to get a visual on the cockpit or something?



Again, there is a procedure in place and the pilots are in visible range of the airplane for a reason.  Nothing unusual about what they are doing...


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> What is really fascinating are the posts at the bottom of the CNN link; it turns into a US vs Canada p!ssing contest.  Very sad.



Troll vs troll, and then the nationalism gets thrown in...


----------



## VIChris (18 May 2010)

Gotcha, I thought the visual may be the case, but had to ask the experts.

Cheers!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 May 2010)

VIChris said:
			
		

> Gotcha, I thought the visual may be the case, but had to ask the experts.
> 
> Cheers!



k but just realize the *expert* in this case is an OCdt from a PRes Armd Recce unit (and, the BEST PRes Recce unit in the CF  ;D).

I don't know if the Hornet drivers are going to go into much detail on their SMM/SMG (or whatever it is called in their community) on this site.


----------



## VIChris (18 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> k but just realize the *expert* in this case is an OCdt from a PRes Armd Recce unit (and, the BEST PRes Recce unit in the CF  ;D).
> 
> I don't know if the Hornet drivers are going to go into much detail on their SMM/SMG (or whatever it is called in their community) on this site.



True, but his wasn't the only answer. Concensus is still a fact based exercise, no?


----------



## bdave (22 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> k but just realize the *expert* in this case is an OCdt from a PRes Armd Recce unit (and, the BEST PRes Recce unit in the CF  ;D).
> 
> I don't know if the Hornet drivers are going to go into much detail on their SMM/SMG (or whatever it is called in their community) on this site.



I think I need a disclaimer under my name.
I am far from being an expert in anything.


----------



## ballz (22 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I think I need a disclaimer under my name.
> I am far from being an expert in anything.



Disclaimers for being a dumbass are patent-pending by me :nod:

EDIT: Which means I would be happy to let you use it, with royalties for every post ;D


----------



## bdave (22 May 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Disclaimers for being a dumbass are patent-pending by me :nod:
> 
> EDIT: Which means I would be happy to let you use it, with royalties for every post ;D



You can have the disclaimer for being a dumbass 
I'll take the disclaimer for lacking experience and knowledge.


----------



## mariomike (23 May 2010)

"The tally is in for the cost of dispatching two Canadian fighter jets to escort a Cathay Pacific plane to Vancouver International Airport after last weekend's bomb threat.":
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100523/national/bomb_threats


----------



## Zoomie (23 May 2010)

Utter BS - you can't tally up flight hours that have already been paid for.  In the grand scheme of things, this intercept gave the fighter guys something worthwhile to do with their days sitting in the QRA hangar.


----------



## mariomike (23 May 2010)

They bill $350.00 per hour for each fire vehicle dispatched to malicious and nuisance false alarms in Toronto. 
Reading of fighter jets responding to malicious false alarms is a newer phenomenon. I guess they too had to come up with a cost per hour.


----------



## DexOlesa (23 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> You can have the disclaimer for being a dumbass
> I'll take the disclaimer for lacking experience and knowledge.



You may lack experience but you were 100% right. You have to make visual contact with the pilots. 

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Military_Interception_Signalling

The Interception

Day VMC
If there are two intercepting aircraft, the second will usually adopt a surveillance position while the *lead aircraft moves in closer to positively identify the aircraft and the status of its flight crew*. Separation should not be less tha the minimum necessary to identify aircraft and flight crew status.

This is also all laid out in the Canada Flight Supplement I just can't find my copy at the moment


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 May 2010)

It's a little known fact that the lead jet actually flips upside down on top of the other plane to get a better look inside the cockpit.


----------



## DexOlesa (23 May 2010)

"must have been 2 no 1 and a half meters it was beautiful. I have a great Polaroid"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2010)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> You may lack experience but you were 100% right. You have to make visual contact with the pilots.
> 
> http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Military_Interception_Signalling
> 
> ...



Good god, another Armour OCdt chiming in on fighter pilot stuff!!!


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Good god, another Armour OCdt chiming in on fighter pilot stuff!!!


Dex may not be a fighter pilot, but as I recall, he is a pilot.  (Civilian)


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Dex may not be a fighter pilot, but as I recall, he is a pilot.  (Civilian)



That and it doesnt take a pilot to read and quote the CFS anyways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2010)

It was just a friendly jab at some baby Troopie's...should've put a  ;D on the end of that one.


----------



## DexOlesa (24 May 2010)

No prob  If you want my credentials its Commercial Pilots License, Multi Engine Rating, Group 1 Instrument Rating, Class 4 Instructor Rating. Experience on the Britten Norman Islander in Northern Manitoba, Experience in a King Air 200 (big brother of the Multi Trainer for the forces) Roughly 400 hours flight time. Flying since age 5 with my Grandfather who was the Pilot of the New Brunswick Provincial Aircraft under Premier Hatfield. Oh and I'm an OCdt about to sign his papers in the Armoured Corps ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2010)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Oh and I'm an OCdt about to sign his papers in the Armoured Corps ;D



Which I saw when I took a boo at your profile.  Having worn a black beret for a quite a few years in a previous life, I still take a chance to poke at baby Troop Leaders in the making when I get a chance...old habits die hard  .


----------



## DexOlesa (25 May 2010)

> Having worn a black beret for a quite a few years in a previous life, I still take a chance to poke at baby Troop Leaders in the making when I get a chance...old habits die hard  .



I'd be disappointed if it were any other way  . Back on topic though, putting up the "cost" of the operation was cheap and served no purpose.


----------



## TimBit (7 Jun 2010)

Let's see how the press discusses the savings when there is no intercept because of $$$ and it turns out to be a real threat!

Oh, but that's right, we don't need the press's approval to conduct our activities so the intercept would take place anyway. 

Storm in a teacup...


----------



## belka (7 Jun 2010)

If only the press knew the real operating costs of the CF18's, their heads would explode. Atleast they saved a few bucks coming from the island rather than flying all the way from Alberta.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jun 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Let's see how the press discusses the savings when there is no intercept because of $$$ and it turns out to be a real threat!
> 
> Oh, but that's right, we don't need the press's approval to conduct our activities so the intercept would take place anyway.
> 
> Storm in a teacup...



What people do not know is that the money for those hours flown have been allocated at the beginning of the FY.


----------

