jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Here's an interesting read;http://forums.jetcareers.com/technical-talk/19065-flight-of-the-unintentional-uav.html
Doing Swing's work for him.
Doing Swing's work for him.
NORAD Tapes
- Thread starter Calcas
- Start date
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Swing is a good example of why I have come to have an automatic dislike for anybody using the freaking Guy Fawkes mask from "V For Vendetta" as an avatar. It is almost a sure sign that conspiracy kookiness is on it's way.
And it lost whatever "coolness" factor it has a long time ago.
And it lost whatever "coolness" factor it has a long time ago.
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
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!
Last edited:
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
But who's the new Malcolm Kirkman?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
A TrainBut who's the new Malcolm Kirkman?
Malcolm Kirkman
Swing Dangler
all three with two names.................think about it...........
Spins
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 702
Hmmm, that's a difficult one because Malcolm Kirkman was the pinnacle of stupidity, the über-truther (so to speak), it's like he was built in a laboratory from the combined stupid of lesser truthers.But who's the new Malcolm Kirkman?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Be careful with that label there Spins. I could vey easily show you links to several threads on another forum where no less than 4 posters each make Malcolm look like the penultimate rational thinker.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
True.
UA175 crashed into WTC2, but otherwise, true.
I would say more than that. There's actually a JSS site just south of the Pentagon. It's hard to judge its inland range at high altitude though because of the Appalachians.
As with AA77, it could be more - it's hard to judge the high altitude coverage of the JSS sites covering that area due to the Appalachians.
You are three separate statements here.
Flights originating within the continental USA were generally not considered threats - true.
The statement that NORAD wasn't prepared to track them is completely false - actually your statement is completely false. Although it wasn't so much that NORAD wasn't prepared to track them - it was that NORAD wasn't able to track them.
NORAD tracks everything within their radar coverage - it's their job - false.
I would presume so.
No, the overwhelming majority of NEADS airspace is not covered by JSS radars.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I wouldn't bother discussing anything with Swing Dangler. He is impervious to logic or reason.
For what it's worth, discussion on the quality of NORAD Vs FAA Radar is a complete and utter misunderstanding. Both the FAA and NORAD use the exact same radars (except of course NORAD only takes feeds from the perimeter ARSR-4 JSS sites whereas the FAA also takes feeds from the internal ARSR-1, ARSR-2, and ARSR-3 sites).
The vital step in the process is the radar data processor which determines what data from the radars is displayed on the controller's scope. Just because a given radar covers a given area does not mean it appears on the scope, and does not mean it can be easily identified on a scope even if it does appear.
If you do not understand the differences in how the FAA processes radar data versus how NORAD processes radar data you cannot understand what happened on 9/11. It is my opinion that this is the single most important reason for NORAD's failure to intercept the flights on 9/11. Even had every other aspect been rearranged to enable intercept (lots of armed fighters already in the air, authorisation to shoot...) due to the way NORAD processes data coming off the JSS sites, an intercept was virtually impossible.
And finally, once you understand the differences in radar data processing, it is vital to understand why those differences existed. (Because those differences were primarily a result of NORAD and the FAA having different jobs).
For what it's worth, discussion on the quality of NORAD Vs FAA Radar is a complete and utter misunderstanding. Both the FAA and NORAD use the exact same radars (except of course NORAD only takes feeds from the perimeter ARSR-4 JSS sites whereas the FAA also takes feeds from the internal ARSR-1, ARSR-2, and ARSR-3 sites).
The vital step in the process is the radar data processor which determines what data from the radars is displayed on the controller's scope. Just because a given radar covers a given area does not mean it appears on the scope, and does not mean it can be easily identified on a scope even if it does appear.
If you do not understand the differences in how the FAA processes radar data versus how NORAD processes radar data you cannot understand what happened on 9/11. It is my opinion that this is the single most important reason for NORAD's failure to intercept the flights on 9/11. Even had every other aspect been rearranged to enable intercept (lots of armed fighters already in the air, authorisation to shoot...) due to the way NORAD processes data coming off the JSS sites, an intercept was virtually impossible.
And finally, once you understand the differences in radar data processing, it is vital to understand why those differences existed. (Because those differences were primarily a result of NORAD and the FAA having different jobs).
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
It's from the FAR. If you'd prefer a more accurate definition of the Continguous USA ADIZ it is:
Does that clear things up for you?
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 387
1. I don't know how I confrimed a defacto stand down could occur? I don't beleive I did. I really don't think any one, two or three people could pull this off.
2. If people ask I will let them know what I know, but if someone is a jerk I can be one right back. I beleive in keeping it civil.
3. I still work in the FAA, when I bring information to this site most of what I bring has already been published somewhere or is public knowledge. It wouldn't serve any purpose to bring forward names of people who thought they were doing the right thing but actually made mistakes. I don't have a problem shedding light on the mistakes I made that day, but I wouldn't want someone else blabbering about them. So need to name names.
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 387
I am not that computer savy, but what Gumboot says is correct about the radar processing, something about it being processed in 2000 bits to NEADS, and 7,000 bits to the FAA, don't really know all of that stuff. I know it enters our facility with both bits of information we send the 2,000 bits of info on to NEADS. In the FAA even though a radar site may see out 200 or 250 NM, you can't see it if you don't have the sort boxes adapted. That is why we couldn't see UAL93, the aircraft was out of our adaptation range. Don't know what NEADS does with there data.
Don't you think you're stretching this a bit and looking at it from strictly a controller's viewpoint?
Bear in mind that the Fighters have very good air-to-air radar and they also have eyeballs, so, as long as they're pointed in the right direction there's a good chance they could execute successfully. Of course, in a busy sky there is always a chance of initially intercepting the wrong target. Beyond visual range (BVR) shots would never be authorized over the NA Continent anyway (as long as there is civilian traffic), so I don't think it was quite as dismal as you surmise.
You do need to expand a bit on these comments about NORAD radar. There is no reason to give the "troofers" additional fodder that could easily be misinterpreted.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Well I suppose if you had actually established ROEs that said "shoot down anything suspect", and if you had enough fighters to intercept all airliners in the sky, yeah it could be successful despite NORAD's radar. Of course in that scenario I'd almost guarantee you that a lot of non-hijacked airliners would be shot down, and there's a good chance your end death toll would be in excess of 3,000.
The main point with radar, far as I can surmise, is ground clutter. Ground clutter on NORAD scopes made finding the hijacked aircraft virtually impossible. But that ground clutter was a side effect of turning up the radar sensitivity to ensure that NORAD could see everything. Otherwise a cruise missile or a Russian bomber would slip by them.
The FAA, of course, didn't have to worry about bombers or cruise missiles, but they did have to manage dense air traffic at high altitude over cluttered urban landscapes. So it's in their interests to clear all of that ground clutter out of the way.
Anyone who wants a very technical but easy to follow explanation of how radar data processing works, I recommend this presentation by Tom Lusch.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I'm already going "Wow!"
over that first slide about the near miss: I realize 1984 was a long time ago, and that things must have changed since then, but still... Thanks for the link!
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I'm already going "Wow!"
I realize 1984 was a long time ago, and that things must have changed since then, but still... Thanks for the link!
It's worth noting that the original presentation was given in 1991, and the website was established in 2000. Finally, as of 2007 the author was still calling for the changes he demands at the end of the presentation. I find it hard to believe he would still be pressing for changes to address a problem if that problem no longer existed.
In fact if the continual reduction in primary coverage capabilities is true (which the evidence suggests it is) the issue has become only more serious over time.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Yes, I'm on slide 13, and I'm beginning to really get the idea of what he's trying to get across.
I'll get through the presentation as soon as I can, and I'm hoping to see a reason why the UCR was closed without the problem being addressed. I may not agree with the reason, but I'd like to think the FAA (that's who'd deal with this, right?) would at least have considered the issue. If this has simply been blackholed, then I'm going to be severely disappointed in that agency.
Now this is the sort of real issue that truly needs an investigation. Not the stupid conspiracy fantasy.
ETA: Oh, yes, you're right. Very quick lookups suggest the problem may not have been taken care of yet. Wonder if CHEAP SHOT is willing to comment on this. Sounds like the very sort of thing he'd have personal professional knowledge on.
Last edited:
Whoa! That was the whole point of including the comment about no BVR. It would never be authorized even if the radar at NORAD were the best there is available. While I may be dumb, generally NORAD pilots aren't, so they aren't going to shoot down an airliner without positive identification even if there is shootdown authority and an intercept vector from the ground. This issue would be particularly sensitive without a good vector from the ground.
BTW, BVR shots are an extreme rarity even in war time. Without BVR authorization the pilot must VISUALLY identify the target, period.
From what I've heard I totally agree about ground clutter on their radars. It's worth stating again that is the reason we can say that NORAD was looking outward not inward. This equipment deficiency over land is an excellent testament to that.
Last edited:
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Yes I'm aware of all of the above, and I don't consider you dumb.
Even with visual identification, with open ROEs I think an accidental shoot down would have almost been a certainty.
You have to remember there's at least three different identities through which a flight is identified - the aircraft's serial number, the flight number, and its beacon code.
There's a reason NORAD never passed on the shoot down authorisation to pilots. The idea was for an intercept to occur, identity of the flight to be identified, and shoot down ordered through NORAD if required.
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.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Wow, what a read. Thanks, Gumboot!
Anyone know if CHEAP SHOT's got an opinion on that whole issue?
Anyone know if CHEAP SHOT's got an opinion on that whole issue?