Iran condemns U.S. jet fly-by of airliner, U.S. says it kept safe distance

[checkered flag]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He is an airline pilot, so yes, I would presume a rookie in air combat.

Probably trained by the Iranian air force.

[rabas]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He is an airline pilot, so yes, I would presume a rookie in air combat.

Many commercial pilots have military backgrounds. Although the trend is dropping in the developed world it's still very true in countries like Iran with minimal civil aviation infrastructure.

 

In 1970, 80% of US commercial pilots had military backgrounds, now about 30%. 

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

Probably trained by the Iranian air force.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Even if so, stupid post to compare a fighter plane with a commercial plane.

Edited July 27, 2020 by stevenl

[checkered flag]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Even if so, stupid post to compare a fighter plane with a commercial plane.

More like incompetent Iranian pilot. He's flying over Syrian so what does the Iranian expect. More likely he was trying to create an incident.

[stevenl]

22 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

More like incompetent Iranian pilot. He's flying over Syrian so what does the Iranian expect. More likely he was trying to create an incident.

He was flying in an air corridor for commercial traffic.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, checkered flag said:

The Iranian pilot seems like a rookie with nerves of jello. One can wonder if Americans or Israelis got into it with the Iranian Air Force. Probably a turkey shoot. Then the Iranian missiles would probably shoot down there own. 

 

33 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

More like incompetent Iranian pilot. He's flying over Syrian so what does the Iranian expect. More likely he was trying to create an incident.

 

Unlikely he could be both a "rookie with nerves of jello" and at same time deliberately "trying to create an incident".  

[Rimmer]

Some baiting/troll posts and replies removed

[rabas]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

He was flying in an air corridor for commercial traffic.

U.S. Department of Defense officials said the Iranian airline had deviated from the civilian air corridor, and the military decided to check it out. NBC News

[JimGant]

Yep, per the nbc news link above, a TCAS episode. Since this sounds like a text book intercept, the fighter's altitude would be slightly above that of the airliner. Thus, the TCAS warning the airliner received was "descend, descend." Normal procedure is to disengage the autopilot and make a gradual descent, one that the passengers would normally not be aware of. Why he made a crash dive is unclear...maybe he had visions of Korean Airlines 007.

[checkered flag]

34 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Yep, per the nbc news link above, a TCAS episode. Since this sounds like a text book intercept, the fighter's altitude would be slightly above that of the airliner. Thus, the TCAS warning the airliner received was "descend, descend." Normal procedure is to disengage the autopilot and make a gradual descent, one that the passengers would normally not be aware of. Why he made a crash dive is unclear...maybe he had visions of Korean Airlines 007.

So in other words the Iranian pilot screwed up. However, count on the louder than you Iranians making a big deal out of it. Poor qualifications and training, I suspect, unless they wanted to create an incident.

[stevenl]

50 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Yep, per the nbc news link above, a TCAS episode. Since this sounds like a text book intercept, the fighter's altitude would be slightly above that of the airliner. Thus, the TCAS warning the airliner received was "descend, descend." Normal procedure is to disengage the autopilot and make a gradual descent, one that the passengers would normally not be aware of. Why he made a crash dive is unclear...maybe he had visions of Korean Airlines 007.

NBC news link, quoting information from the military.

 

Could be true, could not be true.

[checkered flag]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

He was flying in an air corridor for commercial traffic.

So he was well aware that there were military interests nearby and to be aware. Sounds like he was trying to provoke or gauge a response. 

[Purdey]

Amusing that one country could do this close to another country yet if it were reversed and an incident occurred say off Catalina island, the plane would have been shot down. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

NBC news link, quoting information from the military.

 

Could be true, could not be true.

 

I doubt it isn't true. Commercial air traffic can be followed live on your screen (several software and servers available). Unscheduled flights, special charter flights or deviations from routs are readily noticeable. Given the panicky nature of the Iranian pilot's reaction doesn't indicate a high level of experience/professionalism, deviating from route is not far-fetched. It would also go toward explaining the interception being treated as somewhat more than routine - possibly contributing to the Iranian pilot's stress level. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, checkered flag said:

So he was well aware that there were military interests nearby and to be aware. Sounds like he was trying to provoke or gauge a response. 

 

Sounds like you're really interested this would be real, but it's very doubtful this was anything deliberate by Iran. More like an incident that's a product of long standing tensions.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sounds like you're really interested this would be real, but it's very doubtful this was anything deliberate by Iran. More like an incident that's a product of long standing tensions.

Agree with this. Iran is only making a fuss to distract from troubles at home, and I don't think anybody is very much interested in it. 

[JimGant]

Just now, dexterm said:

clearly saw there were no arms on board, but still manoeuvred to cause an incident.

What complete BS. The pilot followed ICAO standards for interception (do a Google). One fighter hung back, the second approached to ascertain identity -- plus, whether or not there were surveillance pods hung (hey, it was reported the Iranian had deviated from the air corridor -- why, maybe to take pictures of the US base it had deviated to overfly...._)

The fighter certainly didn't maneuver to cause an incident -- as we've seen recently with Russian interceptions, which were certainly anti ICAO procedures on interception. In fact, the fighter was perfect with its procedure -- leave wingman behind, approach to identify and assess external stores (i.e., surveillance pods), then exit in a climbing 90 degree turn away from the flight path of the target. All done as prescribed by ICAO standards. As previously posted, it was the TCAS warning to the Iranian that had him do a crash dive. Such action is not in accordance with RA reactions to TCAS warnings -- instead, such a warning is not time critical, thus a gentle descent to a lower altitude (so as not to alarm the passengers is prescribed)

Anyway, looks like Americans did good, Iranian pilots managed to mash a few Iranian faces in the passenger area. As an American, retired Air Force, I can only feel a little pride in our youngsters flying in Mid East airspace. May you get to come home soonest...

[checkered flag]

4 hours ago, JimGant said:

Yep, per the nbc news link above, a TCAS episode. Since this sounds like a text book intercept, the fighter's altitude would be slightly above that of the airliner. Thus, the TCAS warning the airliner received was "descend, descend." Normal procedure is to disengage the autopilot and make a gradual descent, one that the passengers would normally not be aware of. Why he made a crash dive is unclear...maybe he had visions of Korean Airlines 007.

We have all heard the loud hysterical responses typically coming from Iran. This is more of the same. The Iranian pilot blew it and endangered his passengers. I assume, most other airlines would have had their set belt signs on.

[rabas]

12 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Most civilian airlines don't get menaced by US warplanes!

All planes, civil or military, get surveilled if they enter a no-fly deconfliction zone as did the Irani pilot. Even Russian planes respect this no-fly zone, one possible reason an Iran civilian flight may have tried to enter.

[JimGant]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Why the hell does USA have "facilities" in Syria- no one invited them. 

Maybe to prevent Assad from dropping barrel bombs on his own people..... who knows -- and what American really cares. I don't even know who the players are anymore in Syria, let alone who's winning. I just know it's time for the US to quit playing the world's policeman, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya -- the world's enema entry points. But, while we have a presence, be assured that presence will be well defended, from the ground and air. Did the Iranian airliner have a surveillance pod? Probably not. But I doubt we see any more Iranian airliners deviating from flight plan over Syria, at least not near US bases.

For the F-15 pilot? Well done sir. That the Iranian pilot over reacted, and caused some bruises on his passengers -- breaks my heart.

[lee b]

That guy is on a plane without a face mask???????

[checkered flag]

4 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Maybe to prevent Assad from dropping barrel bombs on his own people..... who knows -- and what American really cares. I don't even know who the players are anymore in Syria, let alone who's winning. I just know it's time for the US to quit playing the world's policeman, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya -- the world's enema entry points. But, while we have a presence, be assured that presence will be well defended, from the ground and air. Did the Iranian airliner have a surveillance pod? Probably not. But I doubt we see any more Iranian airliners deviating from flight plan over Syria, at least not near US bases.

For the F-15 pilot? Well done sir. That the Iranian pilot over reacted, and caused some bruises on his passengers -- breaks my heart.

Most likely a probing action by Iran that failed. Then the whining starts, but who will listen.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

I am fully aware of the situation in Syria. 

And the bottom line is this:

An invited civilian Iranian flight that had every right to be there was harassed by a US warplane that had no right to be there.

 

And if UNSC resolutions are your hypothetical lame excuse, the US pilot with his X-ray vision clearly saw there were no arms on board, but still manoeuvred to cause an incident.

 

Perhaps the USA should assiduously apply them UNSC resolutions to other countries in the area that openly and repeatedly flaunt them and where X ray vision is not required.

 

The usual hypocrisy!

 

Obviously, not as aware as you claim or you wouldn't raise all them apparently rhetorical questions. You do not like the US being in the area, and you think that's wrong. Alright. But the fact stands that they've been in the area for quite a while now, and that these sort of checks are nothing new - and not a big issue as things go. That is, apart from your posts, where they become some version of the original sin.

 

A visual verification can serve to confirm it is indeed a passenger flight and/or that the aircraft in question is indeed the one registered. Further, if the reports regarding the Iranian plane going off course are true, it would serve to explain the interception. Given tensions and risks, any variation from routine can become a potential threat.

 

I don't know what you rely on when you assert that the USA plane "manoeuvred to cause an incident." Not that it should prevent you from presenting it as fact.

 

Perhaps the USA ought to do a lot of things, but try as you might, that's a wee bit beyond the scope of this topic.

 

As for hypocrisy, sure. But that's hardly just a USA thing - even in the context of this OP.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Neat way to sweep US transgressions under the carpet. Blame the victim.

 

I doubt a minor aerial incident merits pulling the victim card.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Most civilian airlines don't get menaced by US warplanes!

 

Most civilian airlines don't fly in such zones. Most civilian airlines are not used to breach UNSC resolutions. Most civilian airlines are from countries which aren't openly hostile to the USA.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Why the hell does USA have "facilities" in Syria- no one invited them. 

 

You claimed you're fully aware of the situation in Syria, and yet you keep asking such questions. Go figure.

 

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, checkered flag said:

Most likely a probing action by Iran that failed. Then the whining starts, but who will listen.

 

Nonsense. It's not "most likely", or even "likely". What kinda "probing" you imagine can be achieved using a civilian passenger flight? What was it's target or objective?

 

The Iranian pilot's actions weren't up to professional standard, which caused for things to get out of hand for a bit.

 

It wasn't a major incident, and there's no need to read too much into it.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Obfuscation.

 

Many of the posters here are defending the USA in this blatant incident of air piracy (you included), because of course the USA are always the good guys, and Iranians are the current bogeymen ...so ergo, must be their fault! Neat deflection from US unwelcome interference in the region. Wish Trump would actually do what he boasts he will do...bring the troops home. They can do much less harm to US credibility in Des Moines than they can in the Middle East.

 

Air piracy? What's that? Whether you like to accept it or not, it wasn't a major incident.

 

And no, I didn't say anything about the USA being the "good guys", and certainly not "always". You're making things up, again. And while I'm sure you'd be glad to see the USA pulling out of the ME, that too is a fantasy, for now.

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

Some troll posts and replies have been removed

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The Iranian pilot's actions weren't up to professional standard, which caused for things to get out of hand for a bit.

...and you were there to witness that were you? Clear bias. Blame the victim. One thing is certain, if the US pilot had not been there illegally, this would not have happened.

 

Well, no. But that would be the same for you and anyone else posting on this topic. Even true for those writing the reports linked. I'm sure you had a point.

 

There's enough posted and linked information regarding what took place, allowing a pretty clear analysis. Maybe try to read the topic.

 

And again, I kinda doubt this merits using the victim card thing.