ANZ B777 transmitting emergency code

[NZMXr]

Air New Zealand says it's investigating why one of its planes is transmitting an emergency code.
The Boeing 777 is about to land at Heathrow Airport in London shortly at 10.38am UK time.
It has come from Auckland via Los Angeles.
The plane is transmitting the code 7700 which means an emergency.
Air New Zealand is currently investigating and say more details will be made available as they come to hand.

Anyone know of any developments?

[rmk2112]

Originally Posted by NZMXr

Air New Zealand says it's investigating why one of its planes is transmitting an emergency code.
The Boeing 777 is about to land at Heathrow Airport in London shortly at 10.38am UK time.
It has come from Auckland via Los Angeles.
The plane is transmitting the code 7700 which means an emergency.
Air New Zealand is currently investigating and say more details will be made available as they come to hand.

Anyone know of any developments?

Hi Paul

If you go to "http://www.heathrowcam.net/" you can see it landing with the gear doors open. It landed at 10:28:54 photo id is 241680.
I'd add the photo, but there may be copy right issues....
Regards
René

[speedbird707]

Cathay Pacific engineers spent all day repairing ZK-OKP and it took off 3 hours late at 1930pm

[NZMXr]

I see they said it was a minor hydraulic failure

[3WE]

Originally Posted by NZMXr

I see they said it was a minor hydraulic failure

Speculation: Perhaps they thought it was possibly a major hydraulic failure for a while and consequently squawked 7700???

[TeeVee]

i'm at a loss here. i thought squaking referred to the plan'es ident. transmitting an emergency call because of a "minor" hydraulic failure? what is the purpose of this transmission? is automatic, manual? who is it transmitted to?

[3WE]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

i'm at a loss here. i thought squaking referred to the plan'es ident. transmitting an emergency call because of a "minor" hydraulic failure? what is the purpose of this transmission? is automatic, manual? who is it transmitted to?

The "ID" is transmitted to ATC.

Reserving a few ID's for emergency is potentially helpful.

Like the code for the failure of your 2-way radio.

At one time, this stuff was secret so you could tip off ATC that you were being hijacked. Not sure that that helps folks on the plane a whole lot, but might cue ATC to give you a wide berth, and perhaps scramble fighters to blow you out of the sky before you hit a great terrorist target.

[mawheatley]

Originally Posted by 3WE

and perhaps scramble fighters to blow you out of the sky before you hit a great terrorist target.

Which begs the question, in a post 9/11 world, would you actually use it under those circumstances? I mean, that's tantamount to suicide, isn't it?

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by mawheatley

Which begs the question, in a post 9/11 world, would you actually use it under those circumstances? I mean, that's tantamount to suicide, isn't it?

No, I don't think it is.

I don't think that they'll just shoot you down because of a code. Not until you became a clear threat to a target that is more important than the plane itself and its load.

I't more like saying "if we are going to crash against a target, killing hudreds of people and dying in the process, better shoot us down. That'll save people and we'll be died in any case."

Saying that that is tantamount to suicide is like saying that what the passengers of UA flight 93 did was suicide too. Rather, it was a heroic martyrdom.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

No, I don't think it is.

Concur.

As bad as 9/11 was, I don't think "we" want to blow up a plane load of folks just because some nut wants to go to Cuba, and given that fighter planes and missles are pretty bad a$$, I think they can wait till you get within 5 miles of "a target" before they take you out.

If the pilots can fly in a 'non-threatening manor', my money says you just get monitored...closely monitored, but that's it.

[mawheatley]

OK that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by 3WE

Concur.

As bad as 9/11 was, I don't think "we" want to blow up a plane load of folks just because some nut wants to go to Cuba, and given that fighter planes and missles are pretty bad a$$, I think they can wait till you get within 5 miles of "a target" before they take you out.

If the pilots can fly in a 'non-threatening manor', my money says you just get monitored...closely monitored, but that's it.

not sure i agree with this. if a flight fails to answer the radio and is broadcasting some type of emergency signal, when the fighters get up close and personal, the pilots on the commercial flight better figure out some way to inform the fighters that they are in control of the aircraft and that nothing funky is going on. without that, they may just get "martyred." also, in nyc, "within 5 miles" places them smack in the middle of a major population center. blowing them up over brooklyn 5 miles from jfk or lga won't help the poor bastards in brooklyn

[3WE]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

not sure i agree with this. if a flight fails to answer the radio and is broadcasting some type of emergency signal, when the fighters get up close and personal, the pilots on the commercial flight better figure out some way to inform the fighters that they are in control of the aircraft and that nothing funky is going on. without that, they may just get "martyred." also, in nyc, "within 5 miles" places them smack in the middle of a major population center. blowing them up over brooklyn 5 miles from jfk or lga won't help the poor bastards in brooklyn

I said, "if the pilots are flying in a non-threatening manner" and you disagree?

Like if they wave at the fighter escort and fly exact airways that are normally flown and make sure they aren't aiming at the capital building, you still think they will get flamed?

And, the sad truth is that planes landing on neighborhoods really don't kill all that many people on the ground. Review: Lockerbie, PSA San Diego, Ceritos, AA-587, Delta New Orleans, the big New York Mid Air in the 1960's...

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by 3WE

I said, "if the pilots are flying in a non-threatening manner" and you disagree?

Like if they wave at the fighter escort and fly exact airways that are normally flown and make sure they aren't aiming at the capital building, you still think they will get flamed?

And, the sad truth is that planes landing on neighborhoods really don't kill all that many people on the ground. Review: Lockerbie, PSA San Diego, Ceritos, AA-587, Delta New Orleans, the big New York Mid Air in the 1960's...

well, if the pilot had a gun at the back of his head and some friendly hijacker said, "just smile and fly straight" he might just do that. until he was on final approach to say, LGA, from the south, when suddenly the plane pitches straight down or better yet, banks hard left and takes out the UN.

Lockerbie had a population density of what? and new orleans was actually Kenner, LA, where the airport is located, and also had very minimal population density. AA 587 crashed in a residential and not super dense neighborhood in Far rockaway, queens. the 1960 crash in brooklyn was fairly lucky. and the others... well i dunno.

bottom line is, you let a non-responsive airliner close to a hight density population center like manhattan, and even if you can hit with a missile when it veers off your main airway, a crapload of people are gonna die on the ground.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

well, if the pilot had a gun at the back of his head and some friendly hijacker said, "just smile and fly straight" he might just do that. until he was on final approach to say, LGA, from the south, when suddenly the plane pitches straight down or better yet, banks hard left and takes out the UN.

Lockerbie had a population density of what? and new orleans was actually Kenner, LA, where the airport is located, and also had very minimal population density. AA 587 crashed in a residential and not super dense neighborhood in Far rockaway, queens. the 1960 crash in brooklyn was fairly lucky. and the others... well i dunno.

bottom line is, you let a non-responsive airliner close to a hight density population center like manhattan, and even if you can hit with a missile when it veers off your main airway, a crapload of people are gonna die on the ground.

So you propose that the instant that a plane is suspect of being hijacked, it must be blown off the sky at once (even if the pilot is communicating, he still can have that gun on his head) and slaughter a crapload of people on board, "just in case" the plane at some time becomes a threat.

No wonder you were the one telling (paraphrasing) that everybody is guilty until proven otherwise.

I have a great idea. Why waste time? Kill us (and you) all right now. You don't know who of us will be the next murder or terrorist, and it can (and likely will) be too late if you wait to find out.

The Constitution! Thanks God, I was running short on toilet paper.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

So you propose that the instant that a plane is suspect of being hijacked, it must be blown off the sky at once (even if the pilot is communicating, he still can have that gun on his head) and slaughter a crapload of people on board, "just in case" the plane at some time becomes a threat.

No wonder you were the one telling (paraphrasing) that everybody is guilty until proven otherwise.

I have a great idea. Why waste time? Kill us (and you) all right now. You don't know who of us will be the next murder or terrorist, and it can (and likely will) be too late if you wait to find out.

The Constitution! Thanks God, I was running short on toilet paper.

take a valium Gabriel. we are talking about when the plane is broadcasting an emergency and is non-responsive. not just simply flying along fat dumb and happy.

the original post stated the plane was broadcasting an emergency signal. neither the article nor anyone else for that matter has siad what that means. was it the "terrorist" button? ACARS messages? toilets backed-up? out of booze?

my point was and has been limited to if it was the "terrorist button." push that and you better be prepared to explain yourself or get blown out of the sky. if it was a mistake, fine. get on the comms and say, uh, err i screwed up. no emergency. (and yeah, that could be untrue as well). if not, well, like i said...

and please don't talk about the constitution. when it comes to saving more lives, the constitution allows the government to "sacrifice" some as there are already written procedures for taking out a commercial aircraft and they have passed constitutional muster.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

take a valium Gabriel. we are talking about when the plane is broadcasting an emergency and is non-responsive. not just simply flying along fat dumb and happy.

the original post stated the plane was broadcasting an emergency signal. neither the article nor anyone else for that matter has siad what that means. was it the "terrorist" button? ACARS messages? toilets backed-up? out of booze?

my point was and has been limited to if it was the "terrorist button." push that and you better be prepared to explain yourself or get blown out of the sky. if it was a mistake, fine. get on the comms and say, uh, err i screwed up. no emergency. (and yeah, that could be untrue as well). if not, well, like i said...

and please don't talk about the constitution. when it comes to saving more lives, the constitution allows the government to "sacrifice" some as there are already written procedures for taking out a commercial aircraft and they have passed constitutional muster.

There is a thing called "transponder" that makes each flight be identified in the ATC radar screens with a 4-digits code. The ATC tells the pilot which code to use before take-off, and usually this code is kept for the duration of the flight but the ATC can ask the pilot to "squawk" a new code (for example because there is another plane coming from another part with the same code).

The original transponder sent the coded "message" in two bytes, which corresponded to two digits between 0 and 7 each. The last 3 codes were reserved for emergency situations with the following rules:

75: Unlawful interference (i.e. hijacking)
76: Lost comm
77: Emergency (mayday)

A lot of decades ago, it was evident that 64 codes was not enough, so the system was upgraded to 4 bytes, again 4 digits between 0 and 7, which is what is used up to today. For the emergency codes, the two first digits were kept unchanged and two zeros were added at the right, so they became 7500, 7600 and 7700. You can see in the first post that they were transmitting the 7700 code, which simply means that the pilot punched the 7700 in the transponder and a lot of bells started to ring on the ATC radar control station.

In a response you your question, 3we sort of explained this, including the reference to the other emergency codes, and mawheatley asked if it was wise or suicide to use the hijack code after 9/11. And there the off-topic discussion began.

3we and myself proposed that you wouldn't be blown off the sky at once, not until you became a real threat.

You disagreed.

[TeeVee]

go back and read post #7. it was 3we that mentioned blowing things out of the sky before i did. i was questioning why they were sending an emergency code. no sat phone? no radio? they couldn't tell someone including the company, that they were having what turned out to be a minor problem? sounds to me like horseshit.

now, having your explanation, coupled with what 3we said to begin with about it being secret, it would seem that it would make eminent sense to have a "hijack" button somewhere accessible to the flight crew AND the cabin crew. one that required more than a simple push to activate to avoid stupid mistakes.

i do advocate downing a pax plane in the right circumstances. unfortunate? hell yeah. but better to sacrifice some than martyr many more.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by TeeVee

go back and read post #7. it was 3we that mentioned blowing things out of the sky before i did.

He said: "and perhaps scramble fighters to blow you out of the sky before you hit a great terrorist target".

Then, again before you mentioned it, he also said: "Concur [with my comment that it would not be suicide to use the hijack code] [...] If the pilots can fly in a 'non-threatening manor', my money says you just get monitored...closely monitored, but that's it"

Then you disagreed.

i was questioning why they were sending an emergency code. no sat phone? no radio? they couldn't tell someone including the company, that they were having what turned out to be a minor problem? sounds to me like horseshit.

They used the 7700 transponder code which, corresponding to an nonspecific emergency, specifically excludes a terrorism threat and a loss of comm.

I don't know how "minor" the problem was. They officially declared an emergency the moment they selected that code. I don't know if they also radioed "emergency" or "mayday", but 7700 is equivalent to that.

For sure, it was not just "a minor failure, the ATC receiving the 7700 code, and nobody on ground knowing what was going on". As minimum, the ATC must have asked them the nature of the emergency the moment the bells started to ring (automatically activated by the appearance of the 7700 code).

now, having your explanation, coupled with what 3we said to begin with about it being secret...

"At one time, this stuff was secret" (3we)
But it has been not secret for a lot of decades.
Since the transponder became mandatory for any aircraft in most controlled airspaces (a lot of decades ago), most small airplanes are fitted with one and they had to teach all private pilot students how to use them, including why never select certain codes except to use them in certain emergencies. How do you keep that secret? Do you know that most private pilot students never become pilots? (as if those who do become pilots were not enough to spread the news)

... it would seem that it would make eminent sense to have a "hijack" button somewhere accessible to the flight crew AND the cabin crew.

Maybe there is one, and they are managing to keep the secret.
In any event, in these days of closed cockpits, the thing becomes much more controllable. It makes no sense to hijack the plane and never let the flight crew know. You are going to arrive to the same destination and then what? And if the cockpit knows, then they can always use the 7700 code. Except if the terrorist gain access to the cockpit before the pilots have a chance select the code, in this case it would be good to have a "backup" in the cabin. I mean an "official" backup since in these days of satellite phones, on-board wireless Internet and skype, external help is just a couple of clicks away.

i do advocate downing a pax plane in the right circumstances. unfortunate? hell yeah. but better to sacrifice some than martyr many more.

I think we all agree with that. What we might not agree is what are those "right circumstances", which could range to "down all planes that you don't positively know will not be intentionally smashed against a target" to "down only that plane that you positively know will be intentionally smashed against a target". I think we should wait until there is enough evidence to make us more convinced of the latter than the former, with the addition that then, wait as much as possible (but not more than that) before you do it, since the good boys could maybe regain the control in the last moments.

[TeeVee]

look, there is no question that the procedures exist for taking out a pax plane. who, what, when, why? we may never know. but you can bet your bottom dollar that order, like launching nukes, must come from the president.

the rest, horsecrap. if what you are saying is true, then TRULY scrambling fighters is a COMPLETE waste of money and time, since under your requirements, there's practically no chance the fighters wold ever do anything.

1) broadcasting some type of emergency signal
2) on comms or not on comms
3) on an established airway in keeping with its flight plan
4) pilot smiles and waves to fighter jock several meters of his port side

no shots allowed.

same as above so fighters are sent home or fall back while big ass 757 continues on toward lga approaching from the south. someone takes over and banks left into wall street...

i do not have the answer...