Flightradar24 Hijack squawk

[Mario Facchini]

Not sure how precise it is but a message from twitter has come through regarding :

flightradar24
Squawk 7500 (hijack). F-GSQE (Air France B773) from Paris to Hong Kong http://www.flightradar24.com/2011-09-26/23:51/AFR188

Normally how accurate are these ?

*sorry if this is in the wrong forum, please move if required.

[Brock Little]

Apparently it is an error due to the aircraft sqawking 7566, which is close to 7500.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5265139/
Thank God!

[Philip Argy]

Indonesian officials are apparently asserting that the 7500 squawked by a Virgin captain yesterday when someone banged on the cockpit door should have been 'cancelled' once the passenger had been restrained.

Is there a protocol that requires that to be done? The crew apparently claim that the 7500 squawk remains until ATC ask for it to be cancelled?

Did the 7500 squawk show up on FlightRadar24?

[Grahame Hutchison]

It did show up on FlightRadar24 Phillip, I posted a screenshot in reply to a Virgin Australia tweet.

https://twitter.com/www16right/status/459627975919411200

Virgin Australia Tweet - UPDATE: Reports that a Virgin Australia flight was hijacked en route to Denpasar are completely incorrect. More info:virg.co/travelalerts

[Philip Argy]

Well captured, Grahame!

So shouldn't the 7500 squawk be cancelled once the crew are satisfied there's no hijack? It does seem odd that the Indonesian authorities treated the aircraft as being under hijack even after it had landed if the passenger's (and even Virgin's) account of what happened is true.

[Philip Argy]

I must say that Virgin is being more than disingenuous if the Indonesian authorities are right that the 7500 code was left squawking even after the aircraft had landed. Maybe ATC had been told things were under control but they were not to know who they were talking to and might reasonably have assumed that the 'real' pilot would cancel the 7500 if things were really OK.

It may have been an innocent pilot error (or even protocol for all I know) but Virgin should not be so dismissive of the gravity of Indonesia's response - from what I have seen it was altogether appropriate, especially against the MH370 backdrop.

[Chris B.]

So shouldn't the 7500 squawk be cancelled once the crew are satisfied there's no hijack?

I must say that Virgin is being more than disingenuous if the Indonesian authorities are right that the 7500 code was left squawking even after the aircraft had landed.

Philip, this entirely rests with the pilot in command. There was obviously some sort of unlawful interference on board (Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00489/Html/Text)) in which the captain deemed it necessary to squawk the appropriate code.

Flying in airspace where english is not the first language can be difficult. For the crew to notify the appropriate authorities and thus ATC in DPS, it might have been appropriate to squawk 7500 to get the level of response needed.

I suspect that the crew had a lot more on their hands than needing to cancel a transponder code even after the aircraft had landed, seeing as this apparently happened 30mins from touchdown (roughly top of descent). There is no protocol as far as I can tell that deems it necessary to return to a normal code, I assume again this rests with the pilot in command. Where this is protocol, is in response to a Pan or Mayday where crew have the option to downgrade or upgrade as required.

[Philip Argy]

I don't have a problem with any of that, Chris, except that Virgin seems to be saying that everyone has overreacted and there was no drama. I don't think that's a fair comment if the 7500 code was left squawking and it unfairly characterises Indonesia's response.

[Chris B.]

I don't see that Philip. Perhaps you can post a source? All I see from this link (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/drunk-passenger-sparks-hijack-scare-on-virgin-australia-plane-513711?curl=1398571609) is that it was a misunderstanding and then gave a statement on what happened, and this (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/virgin-australia-passenger-mistook-cockpit-for-toilet-door-as-he-sparked-flight-drama-on-way-to-bali/story-fnizu68q-1226896183373) to say it was a miscommunication. At no time has there been a quote that I can find that the Indonesians "overreacted" or "there was no drama".

The story has been changed several times since the incident, from a hijacking, to a drunk and disorderly passenger trying to enter the cockpit looking for the toilet, to hallucinating and wanting his medication in a bag, to only having some voltaren, nurofen and a couple of cans of coke.

The code of 7500 does not necessarily mean that it is reserved for only a hijacking. Refer to my post above that it is for use of unlawful interference. As I also said above what if the crew could not reach the authorities or explain to them over the radio specifically what was happening and the only thing left to do to gain the appropriate level of response was to squawk that code. Now when someone sees that code a lot of speculation is immediately put that it must be a hijacking. So Virgin's spokespeople saying "that everyone has overreacted and there was no drama" might have some merit? But then the Indonesians reacted as they should have to a 7500 code until they could diffuse the situation.

I'm going to leave it there as we still don't have all the facts and I'm going to leave it to the trained investigators to determine what recommendations and changes (if any) should be made.