I read that this week Israeli airforce planes were scrambled to intercept a private plane penetrating Israeli airspace - turned out to be none other than Tony Blair, but it got me wondering - Israel would obviously be a special case, but in general how much do countries monitor their airspace? If an airliner had some malfunction and strayed way off its ruote, would the countries it overflew even know?
Sure. They even get shot down from time to time.
A commercial jet has to file a flight plan and is in communication with a radar center at all times and would be seen on radar (except over the ocean). So to answer your question, yes. Depending on the country and the airspace within that country, a private plane can operate without contact with a radar center but would still be tracked in a border crossing and would need a flight plan to make that crossing. Tony Bair would have been on a jet with a flight plan and would have been in communication with a radar center throughout the flight.
Last year the RAF scrambled some of its fighters when Russian aircraft approached British airspace.
The Norwegians had also sent up some of its fighters earlier in the same incident too.
Four years ago the RAF intercepted a 747 that didn’t check in with ATC. These days I don’t think anyone is taking chances.
The question is complicated because there are several kinds of airspace and then there are different kinds of restricted airspace. Most of the airspace in the U.S. is uncontrolled at least at certain altitudes. You can fly private planes around freely there as long as it is under visual flight rules (VFR). It wouldn’t be hard to plan an oceanic route that loops from Canada or Mexico into the nearest U.S. airport. It is unlikely that anyone would notice but it would be bad news if you are caught.
Class B airspace around the most busy U.S. airports is closely monitored but planes breaching that airspace happens often enough. Air Traffic Control then tries to track you to the landing airport and has Air Traffic Control officials waiting to deal with the breach. It could result in fines, license suspension, or loss of license.
Breaching the restricted airspace around Washington D.C. is extremely bad news these days. At the very least, fighter jets will be scrambled to assess the situation. It is possible that the plane in question has instrument problems and doesn’t realize what has happened. If the fighters can’t establish some type of communication with the offending aircraft and it is moving towards the White House or Capitol, it needs to be shot down. Someone crashed a small plane on the White House lawn during the Clinton administration and things have only gotten worse since 9/11. Certain military installations also have tightly restricted air space that could result in a similar outcome. Breaching the restricted air space during a shuttle launch is very bad news as well.
Wouldn’t there also be a lot of countries without the budget or inclination to monitor their airspace?
The US, UK, and Norway are all wealthy countries with historical impetus to monitor their airspace well. China is a less wealthy country, but with enemies nearby, so they would also have good reason to monitor their airspace.
What about Algeria or Brazil or Mozambique? I wonder if those countries would have the resources or sufficient urgency to monitor their airspace in the same way.
NATO countries have done this pretty much since it became practical to do so. Canada intercepted Soviet bombers in its airspace on a regular basis during the Cold War, and from time to time it and other NATO countries still have to chase Russian Tu-95 bombers away.
These guys would notice and if you weren’t supposed to be there, they’d give you an escort to the ground so you could explain yourself. I was maintenance on the computer system at the Southeastern Air Defense Sector in the mid 90’s (it’s closed since I left transfering it’s duties to the NEADS and WADS).
Matthias Rust famously flew a private plane from Helsinki to central Moscow without authorization. However, he was picked up on radar several times and then lost again, if I remember correctly. It was essentially continued bungling by the authorities on the ground that let him get through, and had they devoted a bit more attention and effort, they certainly could have shot him down.
The authorities were understandably nervous about shooting him down, since only four years previously when they shot down that Korean airliner, it was a PR disaster for them. Of course, when Rust landed in Red Square they became a laughing stock. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Rust didn’t actually land on Red Square, but he did land near it.
Having flown many long and dark nights over Africa and South America I can say that most of these countries simply cannot afford any sort of monitoring.
A large portion of South America has radar coverage, including most of Brazil (the last time I flew there - they may have complete coverage now but I doubt it). But radar coverage does not equal the capability to intercept a wayward or hostile aircraft.
The vast majority of Africa has no radar coverage for enroute aricraft. Many large capital cities will have radar approach control for vectoring aircraft in for final approach, but anything over 10,000 feet or so is unseen. In fact, enroute aircraft often de-conflict themselves via radio since there is no “controller” to perform the job.
So - many countries simply lack the resources to monitor their airspace in any meaningful manner. Of course, they are probably not the high-value target that Cold Warriors/Terrorists want, so it all works out.