Italian Air Force Eurofighter aircraft were launched for the first time to execute a NATO Air Policing mission over Montenegro.
In the morning of the 9th of April 2019 an Italian Air Force Eurofighter based at Gioia del Colle Air Base some 20 km south of Bari, Italy, was launched by NATO’s Combined Air Operations Centre at Torrejon, Spain.
According to a release, the mission was to intercept a civilian airliner that lost communications with civilian air traffic control over Croatia and was heading south towards Montenegro and Albania.
Eurofighter aircraft who are on alert to protect NATO airspace over Italy, Albania and Montenegro under the auspices of the Alliance, successfully intercepted the aircraft only a few minutes later.
The Eurofighter pilots a visual check of the aircraft to rule out illegal action, technical or any other issues.
It was established that the loss of communications was related to a misunderstanding between civilian air traffic control and the airliner crew. After resuming regular contact with the civilian controllers, the airliner continued to proceed to its destination to Hurghada, Egypt.
Morning all.
First time? I guess Russian aircraft will have problems reaching the periphery of that airspace, and I don’t think intercept of stray airliners is that common?
The RAF are veterans by comparison.
No need to shoot it down as that 737 Max in the picture is probably trying to kill everyone anyway…
Surely that can not be a picture from the incident as those death traps are grounded at the moment (they should be grounded permanently).
Hi Lee. Look at the winglets, the Max has a split winglet, that one isn’t. I expect it is a NG model, which is rather safer!
Look at the right wing.
Oh yes!, well spotted. I wonder if that type of winglet is available as a retrofit? Either it is or that is an old photo.
This is the split scimitar winglet used on some 737NG. The Max has a bigger split called the AT Winglet. The MAX has the LEAP engines with the toothed nacelle.
Forgetting the fact that since the 80s the A320 has had a HIGHER accident rate.
What caused these accidents was in the end pilot and maintenance error. In Indonesia they failed to maintain the system so it failed. In Ethiopia the pilot repeatedly attempted to turn on a system he KNEW was malfunctioning while at the same time he manually increased speed repeatedly beyond the design limits of the jet. He the compounded his error by attempting to put the aircraft on autopilot.
This whole controversy is the result of Ethiopia covering it’s ass for putting a pilot with what Western carriers would consider insufficient time in a 737 or other large aircraft in control of a passenger airliner. This was then sensationalized by a media that hates large corporations (except for themselves) and European governments that have a stake in supporting Airbus.
Yet Boeing have admitted that their software is at fault and that when they discovered the issue in said software they did not notify ‘all’ users to a satisfactory level.
“In Indonesia they failed to maintain the system so it failed.”
I’m no expert, but I think you’ll find that a large part of the problem was that they didn’t know the damn system was there in the first place – it wasn’t in the manual. So I don’t see how you think that they didn’t maintain it properly.
“In Ethiopia the pilot repeatedly attempted to turn on a system he KNEW was malfunctioning while at the same time he manually increased speed repeatedly beyond the design limits of the jet. He the compounded his error by attempting to put the aircraft on autopilot.”
Part of the issue was that they hadn’t been trained on the specifics of the MCAS system I believe – had they been they wouldn’t have made these mistakes.
“This whole controversy is the result of Ethiopia covering it’s ass for putting a pilot with what Western carriers would consider insufficient time in a 737 or other large aircraft in control of a passenger airliner. This was then sensationalized by a media that hates large corporations (except for themselves) and European governments that have a stake in supporting Airbus.”
I’m not saying you are wrong, but do you have any sources regarding the pilots flight hours? How many governments have stakes in Airbus? (The latter makes sense to be fair, I can imagine that)
Nope. You totally misunderstand the issues. The 737 family does indeed have a good safety record. The 737 Max should not really be classed as a standard 737 as it is vastly different and in a very bad way. The engines are much larger (for efficiency) and do not fit under the wings properly (Making the undercarriage longer would need a large redesign of the aircraft). So to fix this they moved the engines forward quite significantly. This means the leverage when on full thrust is much greater and pitches the nose up dramatically. Add to that the lift effect at higher angles of attack due to the design of the engine nacelles (again in order to fit them to the aircraft) which pitches the nose up even further. It is effectively unstable during take off which is bad as that is the most dangerous part of any flight. Boeing did not want to re-certify the aircraft as they have been operating on the original 1967 certificate for all their other 737s… yes you read that correct, the 737 has not been re-certified since it was originally designed! Boeing were also given the strange ability to certify their own components and changes (what could possibly go wrong?). Due to the adverse handling of the max Boeing had to install software to cope in a runaway nose up situation
So now we have a new aircraft operating on a different aircrafts certificate. Boeing also did not want airlines to have to retrain their pilots as that is part of the selling point for current 737 operators. So they simply did not tell anyone about the changes. When one crashed they then were forced to tell people, however they knew at that point that there were serious safety concerns with the fact that the safety system worked off just one sensor! If anything was wrong with that single sensor then the aircraft would actively try to kill its crew and passengers… In the case of the Ethiopian crash the pilots were aware of the new procedures. They turned the systems off but they only stayed off for a few seconds before re-engaging and going into kill mode again. (Boeing have acknowledged this as they are making changes to prevent the system from turning itself back on again).
Basically the aircraft is unstable and needs a redesign. Unstable is great for fighter jets but is deadly for passenger aircraft. I will never allow my family to fly on a 737 max even after the software update.
Very interesting. Thanks Lee
That’s a great post Lee1, Thanks for taking the trouble to explain.
it’s been a Terrible time for so many poor people, I hope they can fix It soon.
The only way to fix it properly is to redesign the aircraft… They will however not do that due to cost so people will be flying in potentially dangerous aircraft albeit a slightly less dangerous one than before…
It is also now apparent that the 787 has manufacturing issues too… One airline found a pair of ladders left inside the tail unit! Many others have found sharp metal next to electrical wires and metal shavings left in the aircraft.
Also the tankers they have been building have been delivered with tools left inside the fuselage… (How does that even happen!)
Not sure I would want to fly on any new Boeing right now…
Try doing some research before making a statement like that based on TV news reports. The latest info from the crashes are saying that the pilots did not follow the proper procedure during the system malfunction that would have averted the crash. That’s why I never fly those 3rd world airlines. The pilots just don’t have the training they need. Doesn’t matter how many flight hours they might have if their training is lacking it makes no difference.
Please post the evidence for that. It seems Boeing disagree with you as they admitted that the system kept turning itself back on and have put in a fix specifically to sort that issue.
It’s a 737-8NG (next gen). First flew 21 March 2011 for Thomson before changing owners twice (leasor) but staying with Tui.
If it had been an RAF plane we could have had fun with the Tui slogan, but as it is, it is not a Typhoon.
The NG does not have split Winglets.
That is the actual plane according to flightradar24. So under normal circumstances that would be correct, but the plane registration and transponder state an 8NG.
Possibly retro fitted. Also the engines nacelles don’t look like a Max. In any case all the Max’s are and were at the time grounded.
BTW. The picture is the actual incident and not a library shot.