I spent Friday afternoon combing through newly released communications between Canadian aviation officials and NORAD following last week’s dramatic scrambling of U.S. fighter jets to Vancouver International Airport. The incident, which triggered an hours-long air alert across parts of British Columbia, raises troubling questions about cross-border response protocols and passenger rights during security events.
The alleged hijacking attempt aboard Flight AC759 from Toronto unfolded shortly after 2:30 p.m. Pacific time when a passenger reportedly made threatening statements and attempted to access the flight deck. According to Transport Canada documents I obtained through an urgent information request, air traffic controllers lost standard communication with the Airbus A320 for approximately seven minutes during the incident.
“We implemented emergency response procedures immediately after receiving the 7500 squawk code,” explained Jennifer Moreau, spokesperson for NAV Canada, referring to the universal transponder signal for hijacking. “At that point, NORAD command made the determination to deploy aerial assets.”
What happened next has aviation security experts concerned. Rather than scrambling CF-18s from Canadian Forces Base Comox, located just 120 kilometers from Vancouver, two F-15 Eagles launched from Portland Air National Guard Base across the U.S. border. The jets reached Canadian airspace within 19 minutes, armed with live ordnance.
“This raises significant sovereignty questions,” said Michel Deschamps, former security director at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, when I interviewed him yesterday. “Why were American jets the first response to a Canadian domestic flight in Canadian airspace? The response time from Comox would have been comparable, if not faster.”
I reviewed the cross-border mutual aid agreement between Canada and the United States, last updated in 2018. While it does permit rapid deployment of either nation’s assets during aviation emergencies, the protocol clearly states that “home nation assets will be prioritized when available and capable of timely response.”
Court documents show the suspect, whose name remains under publication ban pending trial, faces charges under Section 77 of the Criminal Code covering endangering aircraft safety. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Passengers I spoke with described a terrifying sequence of events. Marie Chen, returning to Vancouver after a business trip, was seated in row 23.
“The flight attendants suddenly became very serious, moving quickly through the cabin,” Chen recalled. “Then the captain announced we were making an emergency landing. When we saw the fighter jets out the window, everyone gasped. People were texting loved ones thinking this might be it.”
The Vancouver Airport Authority activated its Emergency Operations Centre, redirecting six incoming flights and delaying twenty-three departures. According to airport operations data, this created a cascading disruption affecting nearly 7,000 passengers.
Transport Canada has launched a formal review of the incident response. Their preliminary assessment, which I obtained from a source familiar with the investigation, identified a potential communications breakdown between Canadian military readiness teams and civilian air traffic control.
“There appears to have been confusion about whether this was being treated as a terrorism event or a mental health incident,” my source explained, speaking on condition of anonymity. “That critical determination affects which response protocols activate.”
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns about passenger treatment during the three-hour detention that followed the landing. Passengers were held on the tarmac before being processed through a temporary screening facility where their electronic devices were examined.
“While public safety is paramount, travelers retain their rights during security incidents,” noted Cara Zwibel, Director of Fundamental Freedoms at the CCLA. “We’re reviewing whether the detention and search procedures followed established legal boundaries.”
For aviation security specialist Dr. Amrita Singh of Simon Fraser University, the incident highlights ongoing tensions in North American airspace defense.
“Since 9/11, we’ve developed sophisticated protocols for hijacking responses, but coordination between multiple agencies and countries remains challenging,” Singh told me. “The fact that American jets were first on scene suggests either a resource gap in Canadian readiness or a decision-making preference for U.S. assets in certain scenarios.”
Air Canada has declined multiple interview requests, providing only a brief statement confirming all safety protocols were followed and praising crew members for their “professional handling of a complex situation.”
Meanwhile, NORAD defended its decision to deploy U.S. fighters rather than Canadian assets, stating that “asset availability and proximity are the primary considerations during time-critical events.” When pressed for clarification on why Canadian CF-18s weren’t deployed, NORAD officials pointed to “operational security considerations” that prevent further comment.
As investigations continue, passengers from AC759 are still processing their experience. Chen, the Vancouver business traveler, expressed what many feel: “I just want to know why it happened the way it did. When those jets appeared outside my window, I realized how quickly our normal world can change.”
