The Command Post
Global War on Terror
August 25, 2004
Report: Missing Plane sent Hijack Signal (UPDATED)

All previous coverage on the downed airliners was in the Global Recon section in this post. With this latest news, I've made this update in the Global War on Terror section.

Via Rusty Shackleford, ABC News quotes an Interfax report that government officials have said that the missing Tu-154 sent a panic signal indicating a hijacking at 11:04 p.m. Moscow time. This update and all the other news since the story of the downed Russian airlines originally broke can be found in my previous post.

1:25 EDT UPDATE
Channel News Asia confirms the hijacking signal report:
An alarm went off aboard a Russian airliner just before it went missing in southern Russia, signaling that the plane had been hijacked, a Russian official told the Interfax news agency Wednesday. According to the source, the hijack alarm went off at 11:04 pm Tuesday (1904 GMT), as the Tupelov Tu-154 aircraft, which took off from Moscow, was flying over Millerovo near Rostov-on-Don, with the aircraft dropping off radar screens shortly after.

Blogs of War points to a story that the second plane's wreckage has been found.

8:10 EDT UPDATE
Reuters:
"The main line of inquiry we are following is violation of the rules of operating civil aircraft," FSB spokesman Sergei Ignatchenko said.

Ignatchenko said this meant pilot error, mechanical defects or problems with fuel quality -- prime suspects in Russia, where pilots are poorly paid and planes often old.

"We are also examining the possibility of a terrorist act, but we have no evidence to support this."
8:20 EDT
Interfax:
The investigators probing the crashes of a Siberia Airlines Tu-154 and a Volga-Aviaexpress Tu-134 have so far not discovered any evidence that would prove that terrorist attacks were behind the disasters, Federal Security Service spokesman Nikolai Zakharov told Interfax on Wednesday. "It has been concluded at the present time that the most likely reason [behind the crash] was a breach of civil aviation aircraft operation regulations," Zakharov said
8:25 A.M. EDT
Associated Press:
Officials made conflicting statements about whether the signal from the Sibir jet indicated a hijacking or another severe problem on the aircraft, and there was bad weather overnight in both areas....

...Witnesses said they heard what sounded like three explosions before the first plane crashed about 200 kilometers south of Moscow, and suspicions of terrorist involvement were compounded when officials said the Sibir jet that went missing in the Rostov region issued a signal indicating the plane was being seized.

Interfax and Itar-Tass later quoted an unnamed law enforcement source as saying that the signal was an SOS and that no other signals were sent.

But Oleg Yermolov, deputy director of the Interstate Aviation Committee, said that it is impossible to judge what is behind the signal, which merely indicates "a dangerous situation onboard" and can be triggered during a hijacking or a potentially catastrophic technical problem.

At the same time, Sibir said on its web site that it had received a message from the shift chief at the military department of a nationwide air traffic control network that said a signal of a seizure had been activated on one of the planes. The company "does not rule out the theory of a terrorist act," it said.

Interfax said emergency workers spotted a fire in the Rostov region, where the Sibir jet went missing. But rainy weather hampered the search efforts and it took hours before any wreckage was found. A flight data recorder from the plane was recovered, Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu said, according to Interfax....

Quoting an unidentified air traffic official in Moscow, Itar-Tass said authorities were also not ruling out terrorism. Interfax quoted an unidentified Russian aviation security expert as saying the fact that the two planes disappeared around the same time raised suspicions of terrorism....

...Interfax quoted a Domodedovo airport spokesman as saying there were no foreigners on the passenger lists for either plane....

...When Russia's UN Ambassador Andrei Denisov was told of the initial report of two near-simultaneous crashes, he said, "Now we have to see if there's terrorism."

In Washington, a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday evening, said it was the understanding of American officials that the two Russian planes disappeared within four minutes of each other, which "in and of itself is suspicious."

Cross-posted: Backcountry Conservative.

Other Links:
Current Time in Moscow
Large list of Russian blogs (page has problems in some browsers - Firefox works best.)
Russian Blogs
Globe of Blogs: Russia
Aeroflot
Domodedovo Airport
Tupolev 134 (Tu-134)
Tupolev 154 (Tu-154)
The Moscow Times
Rusnet
MosNews
The Moscow News
Gazeta.ru
Interfax
ITAR-TASS
RIA Novosti
Pravda
Kavkaz Center (Chechnya News)
Other Chechnya News
Federal Security Service (in Russian)
FSB information (English)

Posted by Jeff Quinton at August 25, 2004 12:51 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I know everybody's thinking this already, but I might as well be the one to write it down here.

First: what's a "hijack alarm?" One would presume that it's a switch or something similar that a pilot or crew member can throw to let air-traffic control know that the flight is being hijacked. Is that what they're talking about?

Second: if the planes were hijacked or in the process of being hijacked, why did they crash? Was it a Flight 93 scenario of a failed hijacking leading to a crash, or was it something else?

Finally: assuming this was an act of terrorism, thank God it wasn't any worse than this. The loss of 100 lives is a tragedy, but we all know now that it could have been so much worse.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2004 02:08 AM

Actually, my question is: How will this affect the upcoming Russian elections? Aren't they due by now? I don't count days very well... it was five days in the future X days ago...

Posted by: TBox [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2004 12:24 PM

Don't rule out missiles in this scenario. The first thing I thought when I heard the 3 booms description was "Mach 2 -- 2 sonic booms and the impact." Of course, that suggests bigger hardware than a shoulder fired missile like an SA2 or a SA6, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Posted by: Phelps [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2004 02:28 PM

I don't think you get two sonic booms. I think there's a boom when the aircraft or whatever exceeds the speed of sound and then that's it.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2004 05:40 PM

First: what’s a “hijack alarm?”

As a GA pilot, I might be able to help here. I don't know of a specific 'hijack alarm', but here in the UK (and I'm sure it's the same elsewhere), you can use specific transponder codes to indicate a hijack (and other situations like lost comms, etc).

Modern commercial airliners also have data links back to home base that could also be used to pass messages. Maybe they have a 'panic' code or other configuration mode.

Posted by: mg [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2004 05:40 PM

I haven't been able to find out if domestic Russian airliners use the same type of equipment, but all Western civil aircraft use a device called a "transponder" that sends a 4-digit code number back to the air traffic control system every time the ATC radar "illuminates" the aircraft. (In most areas of the U.S., an aircraft en route will get "illuminated" by a radar at least 3-4 times every second. I suspect the radars are slower and farther apart in Russia, so it may be less there.) The pilot sets the transponder's code number based on standard flight procedures or on specific instructions from ATC. When the radar system receives the transponder response, it correlates that with the aircraft's detected position and it puts the number up next to the plane's blip on the ATC radar screen.

In the West, there are some standard code numbers that pilots can set their transponder at to indicate an emergency. For general emergencies, 7700 is used. For a hijack, I think 7500 is the proper signal value. (This allows the pilot to send back a hijack signal while under duress from the hijackers, while pretending that everything is normal on the radio. Unless the hijackers know about aircraft avionics, they won't realize it. ATC is trained to ignore the pilot's voice communications and assume a hijack if 7500 pops up on the radar display. This system has been in place since the early 1970s, and very few hijacked pilots have ever gotten caught doing this by a hijacker.)

The catch is, since the transponder is getting pinged at a fairly high rate most of the time, the pilot has to be careful not to accidentally go through one of the emergency code values while switching from one value to another. For example, if the airplane had been "squawking" 0500 ("squawk" is the word that is used to refer to setting the transponder code), and then the pilot was told by ATC to "squawk" 7020, the pilot might execute this by first turning the knob for the most significant digit to 7, and then turning the second knob to 0 and the third knob to 2. The trouble is, in between turning the first knob and turning the second knob, the transponder will in passing be squawking 7500 for a fraction of a second. Even if the controller doesn't actually see it during this interval, the emergency code will cause an alarm to go off in the ATC system and the radar display will do something on the screen to draw attention to that aircraft.

Pilots get cautioned about this during their training. But in the heat of the moment, one could forget -- it's not always an obvious thing. It's possible that the one aircraft had a general emergency, say an explosion that disabled the aircraft but didn't cause it to break up immediately. The pilot goes about setting the transponder to squawk the mayday code, 7700, but in the process of flipping the knobs he goes through the 7500 code for a moment, and that sets off the ATC hijack alarm. (The 7700 code would also set off an alarm, but that's a different alarm and controllers are trained to react to it differently than for a hijack alarm.) That might be what they saw. Until more evidence is released, it's hard to say.

Posted by: Cousin Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 26, 2004 06:22 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?