RAAF interecept in APEC restriction zone

[icelord]

Plane enters Sydney restricted airspace
Sunday Sep 9 15:28 AEST
Two F/A-18 fighter jets have reportedly fired flares at a light plane that entered restricted airspace over Sydney.

A witness told Macquarie Radio that shortly before 3pm (AEST) Sunday, he saw the plane enter restricted airspace over Penrith, in Sydney's west, before having flares fired at it by the two jets.

"This light plane came over in restricted airspace because of APEC and these two fighter jets come out in the middle of nowhere and were flying flares at it," the witness said.

"Right over the top of Penrith, it was amazing. I've never seen anything like it."

It was reported the plane had been escorted to Bankstown Airport and that the pilot was being questioned.

Macquarie Radio said it had unconfirmed reports that the city had undergone major lockdowns as a result of the security breach during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

A Defence spokesman said the department had no details of the incident at present.

The aircraft was ordered to stop 15mins before the hornets intercepted
The incident was reported first by the new Maquarie Radio Current affairs program, The continuous call team, hosted by the Big Man, Darryl Brohman
My question is, whats in penrith that restricted?

 

[gf0012-aust]

My question is, whats in penrith that restricted?

The issue is not the location, but the area of intercept because it effects the response time.

This also happened a few years ago at CHOGM, that pilot was about 2 minutes from getting shot down. (I found out through an AOPA advice a few months after it occurred)

people are so stupid when they ignore their NOTAMs - it could have been ugly if they'd been cleared weird.

 

[Tasman]

What an idiot. Hope it wasn't another 'Chaser' stunt!

I wonder how long before Sidewinders would have followed the flares if the aircraft had not turned away and followed instructions?

Tas

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[icelord]

would not surprise me to find chas in the cockpit, fleeing prosecution.They won't get much either, 3 of the team are Law Graduates...

The response was quick and the 15mins he didn't respond to radio warnings will require lot more explanation then"it was turned off"

 

[gf0012-aust]

They won't get much either, 3 of the team are Law Graduates...

The response was quick and the 15mins he didn't respond to radio warnings will require lot more explanation then"it was turned off"

my response from elsewhere:

"the other issue is that their defence is that they weren't aware of special APEC legislation for given areas. Thats just rubbish. They consulted ABC Lawyers before pulling the stunt - if they got bad legal advice, then "tough". The issue of special legislation for major events is comon place - so their lawyers were selectively deficient or incompetent or negligent at best. eg, we've had special legislation for the grand prix in australia since 1985. I know because for 6 years I used to take long service leave on half pay and run the night security as another income.

Our original powers technically allowed us to arrest police if they carried firearms on site (this was prior to the FIA allowing Adelaide and Detroit to be the test case cities to allow firearms within the grid and primary activity area). We actually stopped Senna and Prost from entering the grid area on trials as they did not have their credentials on hand. They had to go back and get them (and were more than happy to do so as they understood that it was their mistake and that rules were there to be enforced)

whats even more damning about their legal advice is that the legislation is announced in the public papers to conform to gazette requirements - so they had no excuse to plead ignorance."

the APEC area is referred to as a "Declared Area" - and they became culpable when they elected to continue on into a restricted area when they knew that they were beyond their own lawyers expected zone of contact and removal.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wonder how long before Sidewinders would have followed the flares if the aircraft had not turned away and followed instructions?

In the CHOGM incident, the next call back would have been clearance to shoot. At all stages the pilots sought clarification about their next act. That idiot over CHOGM came very very close to getting shot down. (According to the article that AOPA sent to its members)

 

[icelord]

but the question is, were they allowed in since they cleared 2 check points. Technically, they were given access by clearing them, albiet under faulse pretence.
2nd, the ABC lawyers gave them clearence to be stopped at Maquarie Street checkpoint, as no one thought they would get any further, really they just pushed it as far as they could, no surprise really.
The stunt for those overseas
[ame="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17595488"]http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17595488[/ame]

 

[gf0012-aust]

but the question is, were they allowed in since they cleared 2 check points. Technically, they were given access by clearing them, albiet under faulse pretence.
2nd, the ABC lawyers gave them clearence to be stopped at Maquarie Street checkpoint, as no one thought they would get any further, really they just pushed it as far as they could, no surprise really.

1) They knew it was borderline illegal - as they sought legal advice before proceeding
2) They made a conscious decision to proceed beyond a point that their lawyers had deemed restricted
3) They demonstrated intent

No amount of posturing by them or their lawyers absolves them from the fact that they entered a known declared zone and became culpable as soon as they did so.

I'd lock them up for six months so that they learn that the law is there for a reason.

They think its a joke - in some other countries they would have had their heads blown off by the covering marksmen...

 

[barra]

I wonder how long before Sidewinders would have followed the flares if the aircraft had not turned away and followed instructions?

Tas

Would have been quite a while Tas, they would be armed with ASRAAM's and they would be no good against a Cessna anyway. I suspect a burst of 20mm HEI would be used against a small slow flying aircraft. Would have been interesting over the built up areas of Sydney!!

In the CHOGM incident, the next call back would have been clearance to shoot. At all stages the pilots sought clarification about their next act. That idiot over CHOGM came very very close to getting shot down. (According to the article that AOPA sent to its members)
1 Hour Ago 06:56 PM

You people are well informed. Incident was viewed as a deliberate test of the Air Defences.

Hooroo

 

[gf0012-aust]

You people are well informed. Incident was viewed as a deliberate test of the Air Defences.

Hooroo

The amount of money I pay for annual AOPA membership, I'd hope something that they gave me was useful!

My crew pass give me no benefits now except to act like a flight attendant if something goes wrong...

 

[battlensign]

The issue is not the location, but the area of intercept because it effects the response time.

This also happened a few years ago at CHOGM, that pilot was about 2 minutes from getting shot down. (I found out through an AOPA advice a few months after it occurred)

people are so stupid when they ignore their NOTAMs - it could have been ugly if they'd been cleared weird.

My Dad was Duty Warfare Officer at FBE about a year or so ago when a light plane was buzzing around Garden Island..........whoever that was in the plane was also about 2 mins from being shot down.

Not sure of the details of the restricted element of that, but needless to say that the guy in the plane also seemed to be happy with ignoring radio instructions to "get lost" .