London-New York Virgin Airlines flight sends hijack alert code

[Modem Butterfly]

MSNBC Breaking News. No link yet.

[Catherine Vincent]

1. I don't think I want to fly again.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. please update with link when you can !

[Horse with no Name]

3. Saying it is a false alarm

whew!
Edit:
It is being diverted to Nova Scotia--US won't allow it to land here.

[tx_dem41]

4. Never mind. n/t

[wakeme2008]

6. right you have to dial special numbers into one of your

"radios" (transponder).....

[tx_dem41]

9. Agreed.....I do believe yanking the transponder box out..

also causes a backup system to automatically squawk hijack code.

[Ken065]

5. False Alarm

BOO!

Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085449/

[wakeme2008]

8. I would not take the "pilot" word

until they are on the ground.....

[Horse with no Name]

7. New alert

Landed at 11:59 in Canada with tactical SWAT team in place.

[Spazito]

10. It is a false alarm but still being diverted to Canada....

as it was while it was a preceived hijacking. I guess it is okay for Canada to take the risk, yet again, as we did on 9/11. I wonder what would happen to a questionable aircraft if Canada said NO to a landing here? Would the bush cabal allow the aircraft to land or let it crash if it was running low on fuel?

[theboss]

11. I think that's SOP for Trans-Atlantic flights

Nova Soctia is the closest landing strip so it makes sense to land planes in distress there.

[Spazito]

12. No, it is not SOP that Canada accept the risk of a 'hijacked' aircraft

which is different than an aircraft in 'distress' such as a mechanical failure, etc.

On 9/11 aircraft landed all over Canada after the closure of US airspace, hardly SOP, imo, and this situation, as it was initially reported, was not unlike the 9/11 landings. For all intents and purposes, the US would not allow the Virgin aircraft to land in the US, for security reasons.