NORAD Tapes

[Reheat]

I doubt NORAD would have permitted a shoot down unless they were sure it was the right aircraft, and I can't see that happening unless they could see the aircraft on their scopes - regardless of what the pilots could see.

Perhaps, your right, I dunno. It's all speculation anyway as there has never been one before (intentional), by US aircraft.

 

[Corsair 115]

True or False-Prior to 9/11, flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats.

If you judge this question by the degree of security checks required to board such flights, then no, they were not considered threats.

Even boarding international flights between the U.S. and Canada prior to 9/11 did not require much in the way of security checks. Only two pieces of ID were required, one with a photo. In practice a driver's license and a birth certificate were enough to board a flight between Canada and the United States, regardless of which country the flight originated in.

Nowadays, of course, a passport is required for such flights.

 

[Cheap Shot]

Hummus, Reheat, & Gumboot

Interesting stuff, first I read the through the files on radar. As much as I see Tom's logic, in some cases we are going the other way. I didn't see him mention anything on single site. Single Site in the center involes us bringing in ASR from an approach controls. We have several in Boston Center. So where Tom's concerns seems we throw away radar data which we do, in the single site environment it allows center controllers to use 3 NM seperation instead of our normal required 5 NM. We can use it up to FL230 I beleive and then we adapt the mosaic above it for that sort box. The Center ATC can use 3 NM up to 40 NM in single site. There are certain patches here as well, under original single site we would have to lose every 5th or 6th hit. ASR's operate on a 4.8 second sweep or something close to it. Our HOST computer will update on so many hits but then it eventually kicks one out.

So here we are wanting to use a single site to increase our ability to run planes closer together. There are requests as well to decrease a degrees divergence as well which will help the Center controller. But then we are not even using the Center ARSR radar at all.

Tom's page goes into the mosaic part very well, I have seen some test systems without going into to much detail, that feed numerous types of radar and other sources of tracking information, then applies an algorithm and gives you best choice of where the aircraft is, some real whiz bang stuff. Doubt we will ever get there but pretty neat stuff.

On to NORAD intercepts on 9-11, if we had got the planes off early and lets say they found the target, the first one AAL11 would have only been escorted. The fighters would gone in behind and stayed there and never would have made visual contact with who ever was flying the plane. A question for Reheat here, when do you think fighters would have known the intention that the aircraft was going to hit the Tower? My guess not soon enough to do anything about it.

After AAL11 has hit the Tower, the fighters have witnessed the whole thing now they find out about UAL175, but he isn't flying down the Hudson like
AAL11 was. He is over the city, almost collides with a Delta Airlines jet. Lets say the fighters now intercept this aircraft. I think they treat this aircraft differently they actually intercpet this aircraft one pulls up next to the cockpit. On a day as clear as 9-11 they can see in the cockpit. They can tell who is flying the plane. So one aircraft is next to it using international hand signals, or trying to contact the plane. the other fighter is in back, my guess he is locked on maybe not I didn't know ROE then. Or they allowed to even lock on I don't know. Even if they do and they know the intention, I don't think there is a safe place to put this aircraft down. However just the visual of the fighters may be enough for the hijacker to lose control of the aircraft or miss its target. That is my guess.

As far as the others if they would have been intercepted, prior to reaching there targets there were places to put those aircraft down. Does NORAD make that decison without executive approval I don't know.

But to answer the question did NORAD have the radar capabilities to find and identify these aircraft on 9-11, I thought they did and I assume a lot of other people thought that as well. But now I would have to guess not.

That's not to say that with the help of ATC, and airborne radar, and everything clicked our way I think we still could have done more than we did.

A very hard lesson learned for every government agency.

 

[Reheat]

Interesting post, Cheap Shot. We never seem to have enough $$ to upgrade the system to make it more efficient until after an accident or two. Something will need to be done in the coming years as the system is near at capacity now, particularly in the busier terminal areas. More efficient and safe sequencing perhaps could relieve some of that.

You know as well as I do that the airlines are NOT going to voluntarily adjust their schedules to help, so either the Govt will need to force that or upgrade the system.

A question for Reheat here, when do you think fighters would have known the intention that the aircraft was going to hit the Tower? My guess not soon enough to do anything about it.

Well, once the airliner passed JFK, still descending it probably would have been obvious that they weren't going to land there, but I seriously doubt they would have fired at EITHER aircraft. Those kinds of decisions are not taken lightly and since it was not decided beforehand (as it is now) there would have been no action at all other than observation or harassment.

Where an shot down aircraft goes once it's it engaged with missiles or guns is uncontrollable. Obviously, the pilots know the entire area is heavily populated and that is one of the additional issues that complicates a shoot down decision. I can not imagine anyone taking that lightly without lengthy deliberation.

What the jihadists would have done with a fighter visible on their wing is anyone's guess. I have the suspicion that it would have made no difference.

As I've stated several times previously, arguing minutia about the Otis fighters is a moot point as I believe they would not have shot down either aircraft under pre-9/11 conditions. It was not obvious to anyone that we were under attack until after UA175 hit. Had the Fighters actually witnessed AA11 hit, I still doubt that they would have assumed and gotten a decision soon enough to prevent UA175 from hitting as well.

 

[gumboot]

Something that also isn't often mentioned is that shooting down an airliner isn't as simple as simply ripping off a missile at it.

Airliners are much bigger than fighter aircraft, and their engines are located externally on the wing, rather than in the fuselage like with a fighter. As such they're not as vulnerable to heat-seeking weapons as a fighter. Both the 767 and 757 can comfortably continue flying with only one engine running.

The alternative is to use a radar guided missile, but then the problem becomes "Where on the airliner do you aim for?"

On 9/11 NORAD staff were debating where to hit the airliner very early on. It may have taken quite a few missiles to take down an airliner. Acquiring a lock for each missile, launching, gaining another lock, launching again... takes time.

 

[gumboot]

Well, once the airliner passed JFK, still descending it probably would have been obvious that they weren't going to land there, but I seriously doubt they would have fired at EITHER aircraft.

Just a nitpick, but AA11 never passed JFK. It came from the north, and JFK is east and south of the WTC.

Where an shot down aircraft goes once it's it engaged with missiles or guns is uncontrollable. Obviously, the pilots know the entire area is heavily populated and that is one of the additional issues that complicates a shoot down decision. I can not imagine anyone taking that lightly without lengthy deliberation.

You might have had a chance with UA175 on its final approach because it was over water, but we're talking an envelope of a matter of seconds here.

As I've stated several times previously, arguing minutia about the Otis fighters is a moot point as I believe they would not have shot down either aircraft under pre-9/11 conditions. It was not obvious to anyone that we were under attack until after UA175 hit. Had the Fighters actually witnessed AA11 hit, I still doubt that they would have assumed and gotten a decision soon enough to prevent UA175 from hitting as well.

To be honest I really can't see any scenario in which NORAD could have intercepted any of the flights.

It's easy to claim "if X was different" but X wasn't different, and in most cases there was a very good reason X wasn't different. If we take the example of radar ground clutter - which I think played a key part in the failure to intercept AA11 (the only flight NEADS had even a remote chance of intercepting) - it wasn't a result of a poor quality radar system - it was a result of a radar system tailored to suit NORAD's needs. Between when CheapShot told NEADS about AA11 and it dropped below FAA radar coverage (in other words, into the ground clutter) only 5 minutes passed, and the aircraft dropped from 29,000ft to whatever altitude the ground clutter filter kicked in.

So even if NORAD had a system in place to quickly and easily filter ground clutter on or off, they still only had 5 minutes to find the aircraft and get a radar lock on it before it went into the ground clutter anyway. (only 3 minutes if you allow the ~2 minutes it took for Major Nasypany to be paged on the PA system and get from the bathroom to the Ops Floor).

Bottom line, though, is that even if the Otis fighters had been airborne the instant NEADS were told about AA11, even if they had flown directly to the WTC at full afterburner, carrying no fuel tanks and no missiles, they would have failed to perform an intercept in time... why? Because they would have run out of fuel before they reached their destination. And with the extra fuel they would have been slowed down too much, and probably still would have run out of fuel before they got there.

 

[Reheat]

Just a nitpick, but AA11 never passed JFK. It came from the north, and JFK is east and south of the WTC.

Yes, I know. I was based there in one of my previous lives. Perhaps I should have worded it as not proceeding to JFK as opposed to saying it passed JFK.

Bottom line, though, is that even if the Otis fighters had been airborne the instant NEADS were told about AA11, even if they had flown directly to the WTC at full afterburner, carrying no fuel tanks and no missiles, they would have failed to perform an intercept in time... why? Because they would have run out of fuel before they reached their destination. And with the extra fuel they would have been slowed down too much, and probably still would have run out of fuel before they got there.

Very good point.

 

[gumboot]

Yes, I know. I was based there in one of my previous lives. Perhaps I should have worded it as not proceeding to JFK as opposed to saying it passed JFK.



Very good point.

The importance of the fuel thing didn't really register with me until I was listening to the NORAD recordings and realised how much importance they put on getting tankers in the air early on.

Once I did the calculations for fuel consumption, I understood why they were so concerned.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Something that also isn't often mentioned is that shooting down an airliner isn't as simple as simply ripping off a missile at it.

Airliners are much bigger than fighter aircraft, and their engines are located externally on the wing, rather than in the fuselage like with a fighter. As such they're not as vulnerable to heat-seeking weapons as a fighter. Both the 767 and 757 can comfortably continue flying with only one engine running.

The alternative is to use a radar guided missile, but then the problem becomes "Where on the airliner do you aim for?"

On 9/11 NORAD staff were debating where to hit the airliner very early on. It may have taken quite a few missiles to take down an airliner. Acquiring a lock for each missile, launching, gaining another lock, launching again... takes time.

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007:

The lead aircraft of two Su-15 Flagon interceptors scrambled from Dolinsk-Sokol airbase fired two air to air missiles around 18:26 GMT,[7] and shot down KAL 007. Source: here.

Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.

 

[peteweaver]

Swing, given that not one, not two, but three kamikaze attacks had occured that day, had a USAF fighter plane shot down Flight 93, then its pilot would have been a national hero.

 

[Reheat]

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007: Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.

Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".

 

[Swing Dangler]

I drew it with my NWO issued crayons, I apologize I'm not very good at drawing things to scale ... no seriously it's from the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 5, Section 6 – National Security and Interception Procedures.

No it's not a strawman, the FAA handle all domestic traffic within the continental US and when Payne Stewart's Learjet stopped responding and veered off course they contacted NORAD for assistance. NORAD weren't already tracking and monitoring the errant plane. The same thing happened on 9/11 when Boston ATC broke standard protocol and contacted NEADS directly in Rome, New York about the hijacking of Flight 11. NEADS replied "Is this real-world or exercise?" because they had no idea what had been happening on board Flight 11, why, because they do not handle domestic air traffic within the continental US. Do you understand?

The planes that were hijacked on 9/11 were all domestic flights that originated from within the continental US. If the planes were hijacked over the Atlantic and had their transponders switched off etc then I guarantee they would have been intercepted by NORAD, as per the "Interception Procedures" outlined in the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, as they approached the ADIZ. Why, because that's exactly the kind of incursion the fighter pilots had trained for and what NORAD had been setup to counter.

Anyways I believe you need to contact NORAD and inform them that there was a serious security risk during the Cold War. They hadn't accounted for the fact that the Soviet Union could launch their fighters and bombers from within the continental US.

Swing is the new A-Train!

Thanks for the source of the map.l

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat. Remember the post I listed below about air superiority. A suspected hijacking is a threat.

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.Source: USAToday."

You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. The point of origin of said aircraft does not matter. Nice try though. Keep up the bad work.

Lets not confuse the early 1990's (See GAO Report) with the mid 60's "Russian Bomber/Fighter midset. Tsk tsk.
I think you need to study up on NORAD's mission, responsibility, and historical record and stop trying to apologize for that which did not occur.

REHEAT-Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".

There is no need to lie about what I said. I NEVER said it was impossible as you are asserting. Nice try though. There is no need to lie to defend your pal. I countered him by saying that it would be easy to down any one of those especially while escorting the plane as it was with regards to Korean Air 007. So in fact you are obfuscating the issue with your comment.

peteweaver- Swing, given that not one, not two, but three kamikaze attacks had occured that day, had a USAF fighter plane shot down Flight 93, then its pilot would have been a national hero.

Correction, 4 kamikazes. Lets get the facts straight.

 

[Gravy]

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat.

Oh? They knew where it was going to crash?

 

[Reheat]

REHEAT-Typical obstufication of what he actually said SD. He didn't say it was impossible, only that it was more difficult. Your example indicates that as they had to use TWO MISSILES instead of one. Try again "bungler".

There is no need to lie about what I said. I NEVER said it was impossible as you are asserting. Nice try though. There is no need to lie to defend your pal. I countered him by saying that it would be easy to down any one of those especially while escorting the plane as it was with regards to Korean Air 007. So in fact you are obfuscating the issue with your comment.

Poor try, SD. You gave an example to show gumboot was wrong about what he said, but instead your example showed he was correct. This is very typical BS from you. Note that I didn't say YOU said it was impossible, yet you accuse me of lying. You're intellectually dishonest spin artist.

Correction, 4 kamikazes. Lets get the facts straight.

Speaking of facts, that 4th kamikaze diverted into a field in PA made Allah proud I'm sure. You are an example of intellectual dishonesty at it's finest SD.

 

[jaydeehess]

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.Source: USAToday."

You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. " Notice something else, ? The type of aircraft, be it civilian or military DOES NOT MATTER. The point of origin of said aircraft does not matter.

,,,, and you conveiniently ignore the fact thathese drills involved supposed hijackings that were not originating in the lower 48 states were they SwingD? I cannot understand why a hijacked plane originating in the lower 48 would be escorted accross the Canadian border or to Alaska!

Now as for Korean Air 007, kindly tell us how long it took the Soviets to get a fighter to that 747, tell us how long they trailed the aircraft before shooting at it, tell us who gave the OK to shoot. Now tell us that the Soviet protocols were the same as NORAD's.

 

[Spins]

That aircraft was not a threat.

What a ridiculous statement made in hindsight.

You can read for the umpteenth time about NORAD's air superiority mission and the definition of NORAD's intended purpose: the"NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace, which includes: intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects; tracking hijacked aircraft; assisting aircraft in distress; escorting Communist civil aircraft; and intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts. "

Yes, and?

If you bothered to read all the threads in which we talked about what happened on 9/11 with regards to the hijackings, the confusion (fog of war), and time to intercept (etc) you'd understand why a shoot down was not possible. Well you did read the threads actually, you were probably involved in a few, but unfortunately you (like Sizzler) are blinkered, you made your mind up long ago about what happened without even knowing all the facts.

 

[Spins]

Swing, based on the evidence you have uncovered can you please tell us which of the hijacked flights on 9/11 you think should have been intercepted (and or shot down) and why?

 

[jaydeehess]

Straw straw straw-Why didn't NORAD track Payne Stewart? That aircraft was not a threat. Remember the post I listed below about air superiority. A suspected hijacking is a threat.

When did each of the planes involved in 9/11 become threats then SwingD? Not until they were identified as hijacked by ATC, and then ATC informed NORAD, and then NORAD started looking for each plane.

Exactly what, again, was your point?

Payne Stewart's plane became a threat to aviation as soon as it was not communicating with ATC nor following ATC instructions. In hindsight we know that it was not being hijacked or under the control of a deranged pilot, but on that day that was not clear.

Regardless of whether or not the Stewart plane was tracked by NORAD it still took an hour and a half for an unarmed fighter test flight to be directed there after the request from ATC.

 

[gumboot]

Shooting down an airliner is as easy as ripping a missile into it. See Korean Air LInes Flight 007: Nice assumption though until the facts are brought to bear on you.

I took two missiles to bring down KAL007, and because the last 5 miles of the descent are not on the CVR or FDR we don't know if the pilots regained control before crashing or not.

KAL902 was hit by two missiles and still airworthy enough for the pilot to make a controlled landing on a frozen lake.

You fail.

 

[gumboot]

Second, your leaving out the training that NORAD was planning to conduct on intercepting domestic flights. "But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.Source: USAToday."

Um... since you're such a genius, how do you miss the fact that these hijackings were to be escorted by NORAD aircraft based in Alaska and Canada? They were to be intercepting a flight coming from outside their airspace.

If the flights were to be originating in Alaska and Canada you might have a point. But they weren't, so you don't.

And for the uncountable time... a suspected hijacking is not an air sovereignty threat.