Not good enough!
There were a few on 11 September 2001 that were neither inadvertent nor innocuous. I guess they achieved their objective because those monitoring were so used to false alarms.
If I have to run the gauntlet every time I board an aircraft, aren't I at least entitled to expect that EVERY controlled airspace violation is escalated urgently unless and until inadvertence and innocent intent is established?
In the case of this incident, how long before the plane crashed into an Adelaide city building should they have passively watched it and continued to ASSUME it was inadvertent and innocuous?
With ILS PRM, mutual breakouts are ordered urgently if the No Transgression Zone is violated. Yet here we had a violation of controlled air space over a major capital city with no communication from the pilot and, at least so far as we presently know, no security or defence agency being alerted or scrambled. I know its national cybersecurity awareness week but based on what we presently know, I'd call this incident national air security awareness weak!
__________________
Philip
|