At one time, they did make their own fighters. In the background, you can see an Avro CF-100 "Canuck." The plane in the foreground was the CF-102 Avro Arrow which was never built.
Posted on 06/03/2005 7:25:05 AM PDT by Petronski
The pilot says the hijack code is an error and the plane is secure, but naturally the authorities are not trusting him.
The plane has landed in Halifax per Fox News...
Virgin 45 heavy HAS LANDED.
Keep us updated, if possible. Thanks.
Per FNC: Plane has landed in Halifax.
I found this link on google that lists 7500 has the hijack code. http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html
If this was a false alarm...This should do a number of Virgin stock prices as well...see how fast they land!
right, but the ident button is located on the squawk box, so people that may not know the difference between squawking a transponder code and hitting the ident button may thus think they're the same thing.
Ground security forces to pilot: Yo dog why you buggin'?
Fruit? (False returns unsynchronized in time?) Everyone squawks on 1090 MHz, using the same pulse coding. An aircraft will be interogated by several radars at any one time. The radar receiver tries to sort out overlapping replies and generally gets everything right, but there's a small (like 1%) chance of not detecting an aircraft on any one scan and an even smaller probability of making a decoding error.
But such a condition would not persist for several scans, so that is not what is happening here.
Dozens of RCMP tactical security personnel swarming the landed craft.
Nam Vet
A sad LOLOL. Sad because it's probably true.
Well, if passengers weren't freaked before, they will be now...
Yeah, the ident button just paints it brighter on the ATC screen, so the controller can quickly see where you are.
Doesn't the latter imply the former? :o)
If they show him on the ground, check his flaps.
Flaps full down while taxi-ing is the non-verbal hijack signal while on the ground.
Fox is reporting plane has landed. Pilot says no error. Code continued to squawk. Riiiiight, accidental nonstop squawking. So they look in and nothing appears 'wrong'. Well, nothing to see here... eyeroll
"HEAVY" AIRCRAFT [In response to earlier posts regarding "heavy" possibly used for 727 "Con Air" prisoner flights.] Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 08:43:04 -0800 From: [withheld] To: webmaster@ufomind.com Subject: Use of the term Heavy in an aircraft callsign I am a former Air Traffic Controller and would like to clear up the slight confusion on the use of the term "Heavy" in aircraft call signs. You are correct with regard to the turbulence as a large heavy aircraft will obviously cause more wake turbulence than a little aircraft. One of the other concerns for the heavy designation is taxiways and runways. 300,000 lbs plus requires a bit more reinforcement of pavement and many airports have areas that can handle this weight and areas that cannot. It is part of the controllers job to keep heavys off the areas that are not stressed for that kind of weight. In my experience I have never seen a 727 designated as heavy. DC10, L-1011, DC-8, 747, 707,767,Airbus310 are the most prevalent "heavys". 300,000lbs is a lot of plane/cargo. Contrary to what a military person had to say, There is only one seperation standard for aircraft. Heavys cause more turbulence and when they are in low and close to airports they get more "respect" from controllers and small aircraft but in IFR (instrument flight rules) conditions you give the same sepeartion between two Cessna 150's as you give two 747's period.
Dh says negative to the Warthog. Says it's the harrier. Warthog too slow. Carries cool stuff, though. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.