
Watch German Typhoons Intercept a Boeing 777 That Lost Contact with the Airport - mpweiher
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/watch-german-typhoons-intercept-a-boeing-777-that-lost-1792530997
======
guruz
Semi-related: There was a TV event/movie in Germany/Austria/Switzerland last
year about a (fictitious) court decision about an airforce pilot that shot
down such a plane. The plane was taken hostage by terrorists and took course
to a football stadium. The (non-fictitious) audience in Germany could vote if
the pilot is guilty for killing the people in the aircraft or not. 86,9% in
Germany voted that the pilot is not guilty.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5680442/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5680442/)
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_%E2%80%93_Ihr_Urteil](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_%E2%80%93_Ihr_Urteil)

~~~
sgift
To give a bit more background: The law strongly disagrees with the court of
public opinion here. It is illegal to shoot down an aircraft in such a
situation in Germany. The German government at one point tried to change this
and our constitutional court told them that their new law violated the
constitution and has to be scrapped.

~~~
ralfd
There was a new judgement a few years ago:

[http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-04/verfassungsge...](http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-04/verfassungsgericht-
terrorismus-flugzeug)

Shooting down an aircraft is legal, but only if the cabinett gives the order.
Which is still unrealistic, as the Minister of Defence can't order it alone
even in an emergency. The judges recognised that this is suboptimal, but a
change would need a change in the constitution. Some former ministers of
defence are though on record they would still order it and deal with the legal
consequences fallout later.

Then there is the question if the pilot alone (I guess that what the tv movie
was about?) could make a decision? For example if the aircraft is flying
towards a stadium or nuclear plant and the jet pilot has to make a decision in
a split second.

~~~
greedo
The nuclear plant worry is an unrealistic trope. Most Western nuclear plants
have a very robust containment dome that can handle the impact from an
airliner.

[https://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-
Releases/Anal...](https://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-
Releases/Analysis-of-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Shows-Aircraft-Cr)

------
roryisok
> In the meantime, we have some pretty mind-blowing video of what such an
> incident actually looks like from the air.

Mind-blowing is a bit of an exaggeration. it's just a video of three planes
flying along side one another.

------
aedron
Very cool video. I wonder what the fighter jets could actually achieve by
pulling up alongside like that? I don't suppose they could do any kind of
visual inspection or signaling at that distance - even though one did seem to
inch closer at one point.

The wording from the airline statement was a bit funny: _" the German Air
Force deployed its aircraft to ensure the safety of the flight and its
guests"_ \- considering that their main purpose was presumably to blow up the
jet if it posed a threat.

On a side note, I had never seen a video like this before and it really drives
home what massive amounts of exhaust these machines put out.

~~~
eliaspro
> and it really drives home what massive amounts of exhaust these machines put
> out.

It just looks this massove, but that's mistly due to condensation of water
vapor. Sure, those engines have a massive throughput of air, but the visible
"exhaust" is barely the result of burning kerosene.

~~~
sandworm101
And water vapor from the burnt fuel. Hydrocarbon + o2 = co2+h2o. Those
contrails are burnt fuel, just like car exaust on a cold day. The water is a
product of burning.

------
soebbing

      [Contact] was briefly lost while flying over German airspace. Communication was safely restored within a few minutes.
    

That sounds like the whole incident didn't take more than 15 minutes. Does
somebody know how fast the Typhoons were with the airliner?

I know there are some guidelines for the Luftwaffe like "a fighter needs to be
able to get to any point in german airspace within 15 minutes" or so, but that
all sounds VERY fast.

Edit: Formatting

~~~
JHof
Interesting that they intercepted after only 15 minutes. Maybe the aircraft
had crossed the border without making contact. In the US, airliners
accidentally lose contact for close to this time period quite frequently. To
reestablish, the controllers will sometimes have a fellow company ship relay a
message with the correct frequency via ACARS, or the lost aircraft can listen
on 121.5 until someone calls with the correct frequency. I suppose in Europe
this would be considered a more critical issue due to the frequent border
crossings.

~~~
dogma1138
It's dependant on the airspace you are flying through and when are you
supposed to make contact.

Try flying over NYC out of contact for 15min and lets see how it goes.

~~~
JHof
An airliner at that altitude would be well outside of any city's airspace.

~~~
dogma1138
I know, there are still different communication requirements for different
airspaces.

When you file your travel plans you'll have to check in with different ATCs at
different points, you are also likely to be contacted by ATCs depending on the
flight plan, conditions and various other factors during the flight.

If you do not check in on schedule e.g. when there is a handover of ATCs or
you do not respond to ATCs that trying to make contact with you, there will be
a flag and an alert will be likely sent. If this goes on for minutes then
they'll assume something was wrong and follow their procedure to make contact
and investigate which might involve scrambling jets to make visual contact.

It's not like pilots can be too busy to respond to ATCs yes they might delay a
response if they are in a middle of a sentence with a member of the air crew
but that's a 5 seconds delay. Even a 1 minute delay would be flagged and
you'll likely to be asked why you haven't responded or made contact on time.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
Quite the LOL at the chatter between the the British Airways pilots filming
this saying _I expect they love the opportunity to do this. Any excuse_ and
the other one _yeah_.

------
iSnow
Could anyone comment on why both lower fighters keep to the left side of the
airliner? For better visibility, I would have expected them to take it between
them. Additionally, the sun seems to be on the left, so they would be hard to
make out.

~~~
zuzun
It's all standardized interception behaviour. The flight leader is trying
establish contact with the plane on the left side, the other jet is just on
standby.

Edit: And they picked the left side because that's where the pilot in charge
of the plane is supposed to sit.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Plus, I would imagine, the interceptors are leaving the right side clear:
should an additional _aviation_ emergency develop, the plane is still safe to
maneuver in 5 directions (the sixth being blocked by the interceptors).

------
codeisawesome
Everything is so beautiful, up there.

------
std_throwaway
In the northern hemisphere these warplanes are called "Tornado".

~~~
roryisok
Eurofighter Typhoon and Panavia Tornado are different aircraft.

~~~
manicdee
It was an obvious joke relating to regional names for weather events.

~~~
std_throwaway
Of course; it doesn't even make sense for Europe to have a "Typhoon" aircraft
due to the geographical location.

I guess Europe has some "Penguin" submarines, too.

~~~
TeMPOraL
We'll consider renaming the plane when US changes the Apollo program to
something that doesn't refer to European heritage.

------
Markoff
> As a precaution, the German Air Force deployed its aircraft to ensure the
> safety of the flight and its guests.

sure, safety of the flight and guests, you mean humanely killed by rocket
instead of hitting some target on ground?

~~~
dogma1138
Making visual contact and making sure that the passengers and the crew are not
in distress.

Could've been cabin preassure loss and all of them are passed out all dead
just as much as hijacking.

Shooting down can be just as achieved with surface to air missiles.

We send jets to establish contact and use short range and if needed LOS
communication to figure out what is going.

~~~
tomp
> cabin preassure loss and all of them are passed out

What could the fighter jets possibly do to "save" the passengers in such a
situation?

~~~
iSnow
Nothing:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522)

~~~
tunap
Observe and report.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_cras...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash)

------
tomp
> As a precaution, the German Air Force deployed its aircraft to ensure the
> safety of the flight and its guests.

Does anyone still believe this bullshit? Clearly there's nothing that the
fighter jets could do to ensure the safety of the flight/passengers - the most
they could do is to shoot the plane down in a safe area to avoid casualties
_on the ground_ , if it were e.g. controlled by terrorists.

And the media/institutions wonder why people don't trust them...

~~~
iSnow
It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and ordering
the pilot to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot would be forbidden
from following. The most anyone could do would be the Minister of Defence of
the Chancellor talking directly to the pilot and telling her that they would
take the fall if her conscience allowed them to shoot down the plane. The
pilot would still face a trial with uncertain results.

So, please stop with the alternative facts and the conspiracy stuff. Not every
country works like the US of A, unbelievably.

~~~
hubert123
> It would be illegal in Germany to shoot down a hijacked airliner and
> ordering the pilot to do so would be an illegitimate order the pilot would
> be forbidden from following

Yeah we're going need a source on that. Don't even think of pulling up that
vague Grundgesetz about human dignity, the legality of refusing an order would
be established AFTER the fact. To call such an order illegal before any court
judgement is the very thing that you are branding as an alternative fact.

~~~
iSnow
Decision 1 BvR 357/05
([https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheid...](https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2006/02/rs20060215_1bvr035705.html)):

>The armed forces’ authorisation pursuant to § 14.3 of the Aviation Security
Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz – LuftSiG) to shoot down by the direct use of armed
force an aircraft that is intended to be used against human lives __is
incompatible with the right to life under Article 2.2 sentence 1 of the Basic
Law in conjunction with the guarantee of human dignity under Article 1.1 of
the Basic Law __to the extent that it affects persons on board the aircraft
who are not participants in the crime.

~~~
hubert123
It sounds incredibly dumb and the fact that nobody has challenged and changed
this is testament to the pace of public official life. If somebody were to get
a nuclear bomb on a civilian plane, the german government would be
constitutionally obligated to let them fly to wherever they want. I imagine
that in real life the german government would ask France or Great Britain to
quickly fly over and do the job for them. Afterwards it's nobody's fault and
we can all keep pretending that the Grundgesetz is perfect.

