ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , neads , norad

Reply
Old 14th August 2006, 11:02 PM   #1
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
The NORAD 9/11 Response

The following is a timeline of the NORAD response to the hijackings on 9/11, as based on the transcripts from over 30 hours of recordings inside the NORAD command centre.

All times are in Eastern Daylight Time

0759
AA11 departs Logan International Airport

0813
AA11 is hijacked. Short after its transponder is turned off

0814 UA175 departs Logan International Airport

0820 AA77 departs Washington Dulles International Airport

0820 AA11 turns off its IFF (Identify Friend-or-Foe) beacon and begins deviating from its scheduled flight path

0824
AA11 makes a 100 degree turn and heads for New York City

0837 Boston Centre notifies NEADS of the hijacking of AA11 and requests an aircraft scramble. This is the first incident of the morning.

Quote:
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
0838 The two F-15s on alert status at Otis ANGB (Air National Guard Base) are put on “Battle Stations” (pilots enter their aircraft and await the signal to launch)

0839 NEADS contact Boston Centre and discover they do not know where AA11 is (because the aircraft’s transponder has been turned off).

Quote:
08:39:58
WATSON: It’s the inbound to J.F.K.?
BOSTON CENTER: We—we don’t know.
WATSON: You don’t know where he is at all?
BOSTON CENTER: He’s being hijacked. The pilot’s having a hard time talking to the—I mean, we don’t know. We don’t know where he’s goin’. He’s heading towards Kennedy. He’s—like I said, he’s like 35 miles north of Kennedy now at 367 knots. We have no idea where he’s goin’ or what his intentions are.
WATSON: If you could please give us a call and let us know—you know any information, that’d be great.
BOSTON CENTER: Okay. Right now, I guess we’re trying to work on—I guess there’s been some threats in the cockpit. The pilot—
WATSON: There’s been what?! I’m sorry.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Threat to the … ?
BOSTON CENTER: We’ll call you right back as soon as we know more info.
0842 UA93 departs Newark International Airport

0844 UA 175 is hijacked

0844 Despite having no coordinates for intercept, NEADS decide to launch the Otis aircraft anyway.

Quote:
08:44:59
FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don’t know where I’m scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—
NASYPANY: O.K., I’m gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It’s just north of—New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head ‘em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.
0846 AA11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Centre

0846 The stoplight at the Alert Barn on Otis ANGB turns from red to green, and the two F-15s taxi out to the runway.

0851 Boston Centre notifies NEADS that an aircraft has flown into the WTC. NEADS immediately call New York Centre, and discover they do not yet know about the incident. This is the second aircraft incident of the morning (NEADS do not know it is AA11).

Quote:
08:51:11
ROUNTREE: A plane just hit the World Trade Center.
WATSON: What?
ROUNTREE: Was it a 737?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (background): Hit what?
WATSON: The World Trade Center—
DOOLEY: Who are you talking to? [Gasps.]
WATSON: Oh!
DOOLEY: Get—pass—pass it to them—
WATSON: Oh my God. Oh God. Oh my God.
ROUNTREE: Saw it on the news. It’s—a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center.
DOOLEY: Update New York! See if they lost altitude on that plane altogether.

Watson places a call to civilian controllers at New York Center.

WATSON: Yes, ma’am. Did you just hear the information regarding the World Trade Center?
NEW YORK CENTER: No.
WATSON: Being hit by an aircraft?
NEW YORK CENTER: I’m sorry?!
WATSON: Being hit by an aircraft.
NEW YORK CENTER: You’re kidding.
WATSON: It’s on the world news.
0852 UA175 turns off course and fails to respond to communication. New York Centre knows the aircraft has been hijacked.

0852 NEADS decide to direct the Otis fighters to New York City anyway.

Quote:
08:52:40
NASYPANY: Send ‘em to New York City still. Continue! Go!
NASYPANY: This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world. And we’re trying to confirm this. Okay. Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, J.F.K. area, if you can. Make sure that the F.A.A. clears it— your route all the way through. Do what we gotta do, okay? Let’s press with this. It looks like this guy could have hit the World Trade Center.
0854 AA77 is hijacked and its transponder is turned off. Indianapolis Centre loses contact with the aircraft and assumes it has crashed.

0855 Confusion begins to arise as to whether the aircraft that hit the WTC was AA11. Confirmation is required from the airline company (who independently track their aircraft), however American Airlines does not confirm the fate of AA11. Airlines routinely go into “information lockdown” when a crisis occurs.

Quote:
08:55:18
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, he crashed into the World Trade Center.
ROUNTREE: That is the aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. Disregard the—disregard the tail number [given earlier for American 11].
ROUNTREE: Disregard the tail number? He did crash into the World Trade Center?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): That’s—that’s what we believe, yes.

But an unidentified male trooper at NEADS overhears the exchange and raises a red flag.

08:56:31
MALE NEADS TECH: I never heard them say American Airlines Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. I heard it was a civilian aircraft.

Dooley, the ID desk’s master sergeant, takes the phone from Rountree to confirm for herself, and the story veers off course …

DOOLEY (to Boston): Master Sergeant Dooley here. We need to have—are you giving confirmation that American 11 was the one—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No, we’re not gonna confirm that at this time. We just know an aircraft crashed in and …
DOOLEY: You—are you—can you say—is anyone up there tracking primary on this guy still?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): No. The last [radar sighting] we have was about 15 miles east of J.F.K., or eight miles east of J.F.K. was our last primary hit. He did slow down in speed. The primary that we had, it slowed down below—around to 300 knots.
DOOLEY: And then you lost ‘em?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah, and then we lost ‘em.
0856 Indianapolis Centre notify the FAA that AA77 has been hijacked (realizing it did not crash).

0903 NEADS are notified of a second hijacking. (3rd incident of the morning).
Quote:
09:03:17
ROUNTREE: They have a second possible hijack!
0903 UA175 hits the South Tower of the WTC. A number of NEADS personnel witness it live on CNN.

0907 FAA civilian controllers direct the Otis fighters to enter a holding pattern over Long Island. They are worried about the fighters colliding with civilian aircraft in the densely packed airspace over New York.
NEADS weapon controllers are not happy.

Quote:
09:07:20
NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell ‘em if this stuff’s gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put ‘em over Manhattan, O.K.? That’s the best thing. That’s the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell ‘em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ‘em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.
NEADS weapons controllers request the launch of the two F-16 fighters at Alert on Langley AFB (Air Force Base) in Virginia. However this request is refused by NEADS command. Instead the fighters are put on Battle Stations. NEADS command are concerned that the Langley fighters are the only remaining aircraft they have – if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time.

0921 Boston Centre notify NEADS of a third hijacked aircraft, headed for Washington DC. (4th incident of the morning).

Quote:
9:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It’s headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: ****! Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.
0921 Boston Centre overhears a FAA conversation which mentions AA11 is still airborne. Based on this and AA11’s previous known heading they determine that it is headed for Washington DC. They notify NEADS.

Quote:
9:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.
0922 The Langley fighters are scrambled, however the pilots are not given a reason for a scramble. The Navy ATC handling them directs them east, over the Atlantic Ocean, to a military training airspace called Whiskey 386.

0928 UA93 is hijacked.

0934 In the course of a call to Washington Centre, NEADS finds out about the hijacking of AA77 (bringing the day’s total – from NEADS’ point of view – to 4 hijackings (one crashed into WTC) plus the first crash into the WTC as a 5th aircraft).

Quote:
9:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.
0934 NEADS notice the F-16s are headed in the wrong direction, and contact the Navy ATC.

Quote:
9:34:12
NAVY A.T.C.: You’ve got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want ‘em to go to Baltimore?
HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We’re not gonna take ‘em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].
NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?
HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing ‘em back, just tell Center they’ve got to go to Baltimore.
NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We’ll get back to you.
CITINO: What do you mean, “We’ll get back to you”? Just do it!
HUCKABONE: I’m gonna choke that guy!
CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.
HUCKABONE: O.K.
CITINO: All right, Huck. Let’s get our act together here.
0935 Boston Centre notify NEADS of yet another unidentified aircraft flying over Washington DC (6th aircraft incident).

Quote:
9:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for NEADS] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he’s moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don’t have a type aircraft, you don’t know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We’re over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.
0936 The Langley Fighters are directed to head for the White House.

Quote:
9:36:23
NASYPANY: O.K., Foxy [Major Fox, the Weapons Team head]. I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!
MALE VOICE: That came from Boston?
HUCKABONE: We’re gonna turn and burn it—crank it up—
MALE TECH: Six miles!
HUCKABONE: All right, here we go. This is what we’re gonna do—
NASYPANY: We’ve got an aircraft deviating eight [sic] miles east of the White House right now.
FOX: Do you want us to declare A.F.I.O. [emergency military control of the fighters] and run ‘em straight in there?
NASYPANY: Take ‘em and run ‘em to the White House.
FOX: Go directly to Washington.
CITINO: We’re going direct D.C. with my guys [Langley fighters]? Okay. Okay.
HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we are going A.F.I.O. right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct Washington.
NAVY A.T.C.: Quit 2-5, we’re handing ‘em off to Center right now.
HUCKABONE: Ma’am, we need to expedite that right now. We’ve gotta contact them on 2-3-4-6.
0937 AA77 hits The Pentagon. The Langley Fighters are 150 miles away.

0939 After several transmissions from the hijackers, Cleveland Centre is now aware that UA93 has been hijacked. However they do not notify the military – standard procedure in the event of a hijacking is to hand control over to the FBI.

0940 Boston Centre notify NEADS of a possibly hijacking of Delta 1989. Unknown to Boston Centre, an ATC in Cleveland has already made contact with the crew of Delta 1989 and determined that there is no hijacking. This is the 7th aircraft incident of the day, as far as NEADS are aware.

Quote:
9:40:57
ROUNTREE: Delta 89, that’s the hijack. They think it’s possible hijack.
DOOLEY: ****!
ROUNTREE: South of Cleveland. We have a code on him now.
DOOLEY: Good. Pick it up! Find it!
MALE TECH: Delta what?
ROUNTREE: Eight nine—a Boeing 767.
DOOLEY: ****, another one—
NEADS begin contacting ANG bases along the aircraft’s path, as there are no NORAD aircraft in a position to intercept.

0954 A base in Selfridge, Michigan offers up fighters to intercept Delta 1989.

Quote:
9:54:54
SELFRIDGE FLIGHT OFFICER: Here—here’s what we can do. At a minimum, we can keep our guys airborne. I mean, they don’t have—they don’t have any guns or missiles or anything on board. But we—
NEADS TECH: It’s a presence, though.
1000 Some time between 0954 and 1007, NEADS receive a call from NORAD Canada Region, notifying them of a suspected hijack aircraft headed south across the border to Washington. This is the 8th aircraft incident.

1003 UA93 crashes into a field near Shankesville, Pennsylvania after passengers attempt to seize control of the cockpit.

1007 Baltimore Centre becomes aware of an aircraft over the White House. 9th aircraft incident.

Quote:
10:07:08
PILOT: Baltimore is saying something about an aircraft over the White House. Any words?
CITINO: Negative. Stand by. Do you copy that, SD [Major Fox]? Center said there’s an aircraft over the White House. Any words?
FOX: M.C.C. [Nasypany], we’ve got an aircraft reported over the White House.
NASYPANY: Intercept!
FOX: Intercept!
NASYPANY: Intercept and divert that aircraft away from there.
CITINO: Quit 2-5 [Langley fighters], mission is intercept aircraft over White House. Use F.A.A. for guidance.
FOX: Divert the aircraft away from the White House. Intercept and divert it.
CITINO: Quit 2-5, divert the aircraft from the White House.
PILOT: Divert the aircraft.…
1007 Cleveland Centre notifies NEADS of the hijacking of UA93 – unaware that it has already crashed. 10th aircraft incident.

Quote:
10:07:16
CLEVELAND CENTER: We got a United 93 out here. Are you aware of that?
WATSON: United 93?
CLEVELAND CENTER: That has a bomb on board.
WATSON: A bomb on board?! And this is confirmed? You have a [beacon code], sir?
CLEVELAND CENTER: No, we lost his transponder.

The information is shouted out to Nasypany.

NASYPANY: Gimme the call sign. Gimme the whole nine yards.… Let’s get some info, real quick. They got a bomb?
1010 The chase towards the White House continues, eventually ending when NEADS realize the unidentified aircraft spotted by Baltimore Centre is actually the two Langley F-16s.

Quote:
10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: **** the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

CITINO: Quit 2-6, Huntress. How far is the—suspect aircraft?
PILOT: Standby. Standby.… About 15 miles, Huntress.
CITINO: Huntress copies two-two miles.
PILOT: 15 miles, Huntress.
CITINO: 15 miles. One-five … noise level please … It’s got to be low. Quit 2-6, when able say altitude of the aircraft.… Did we get a Z-track [coordinates] up for the White House?
HUCKABONE: They’re workin’ on it.
CITINO: Okay. Hey, what’s this Bravo 0-0-5 [unidentified target]?
FOX: We’re trying to get the Z-point. We’re trying to find it.
HUCKABONE: I don’t even know where the White House is.
CITINO: Whatever it is, it’s very low. It’s probably a helicopter.
MALE VOICE: It’s probably the helicopter you’re watching there.… There’s probably one flying over the [Pentagon].
MALE VOICE: It’s probably the smoke. The building’s smoked. [They’re seeing more pictures of the flaming Pentagon on CNN.]
HUCKABONE: Holy ****.… Holy **** …
CITINO: Yes. We saw that. O.K.—let’s watch our guys, Huck. Not the TV.… Quit 2-6, status? SD, they’re too low. I can’t talk to ‘em. They’re too low. I can’t talk to ‘em.
FOX: Negative clearance to fire.
CITINO: O.K. I told ‘em mission is ID and that was it.
FOX: Do whatever you need to divert. They are not cleared to fire.

HUCKABONE: It was our guys [the fighters from Langley].
CITINO: Yup. It was our guys they saw. It was our guys they saw—Center saw.
FOX: New York did the same thing….
CITINO: O.K., Huck. That was cool. We intercepted our own guys.
1015 NEADS are notified that UA93 has crashed.

Quote:
10:15:00
WATSON: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yeah, he’s down.
WATSON: What—he’s down?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yes.
WATSON: When did he land? Because we have confirmation—
WASHINGTON CENTER: He did—he did—he did not land.

Here, on the tape, you hear the air rush out of Watson’s voice.

WATSON: Oh, he’s down down?
MALE VOICE: Yes. Yeah, somewhere up northeast of Camp David.
WATSON: Northeast of Camp David.
WASHINGTON CENTER: That’s the—that’s the last report. They don’t know exactly where.
1015 30 seconds after being notified that UA93 has crashed, NORAD South East Air Defense Sector (SEADS) notifies NEADS of another potential hijacking. This is the 11th incident of the day.

Quote:
10:15:30
POWELL: Southeast just called. There’s another possible hijack in our area.…
NASYPANY: All right. **** …
False reports of hijackings, and real responses, continue well into the afternoon, though civilian air-traffic controllers had managed to clear the skies of all commercial and private aircraft by just after 12 p.m. The fighter pilots over New York and D.C. (and later Boston and Chicago) would spend hours darting around their respective skylines intercepting hundreds of aircraft they deemed suspicious. Meanwhile, Arnold, Marr, and Nasypany were launching as many additional fighters as they could, placing some 300 armed jets in protective orbits over every major American city by the following morning. No one at NEADS would go home until late on the night of the 11th, and then only for a few hours of sleep.

Primary Timeline Resources

Vanity Fair article “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes”

Information on AA 11
Information on UA 175
Information on AA 77
Information on UA 93

It is interesting to note that between 0837 and 1015 (98 minutes) NEADS are notified of 11 different incidents involving commercial aircraft (many of these turn out to be double-ups, phantom aircraft, mistakes, etc...)

I also have a word document version of this timeline.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2006, 11:34 PM   #2
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Andrew,

How well do you think they responded?

There seems to be a lot of confusion, but I don't know how much of that is natural.

Do you think they would be better placed to respond today?
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2006, 11:51 PM   #3
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,053
That's a nice compilation. I've been looking for information on the tanker orbits set up in anticipation of the CAPs missions. That question sort of formed in my mind in response to a series of What If? questions posed on another board.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2006, 11:56 PM   #4
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by gtc View Post
Andrew,

How well do you think they responded?

There seems to be a lot of confusion, but I don't know how much of that is natural.

Do you think they would be better placed to respond today?

I believe their response was exceptional. They made a number of instinctive decisions that proved to be the correct ones. A number of things that caused their "failure":

1) The fact that NORAD are not responsible for intercepts outside the ADIZ
2) The fact that standard proceedure for a hijacking was not to involve the military directly
3) The fact that NORAD's resources had been slashed, resulting in too few aircraft, and out-dated equipment
4) That there was no standing order for shooting down a hostile civilian aircraft (there was no concept of a hostile civilian aircraft!)
5) The fact that the transponders were disabled
6) The poor supply of information from badly informed civilian ATCs and the FAA

As NORAD staff shamefully admitted when the 9/11 Commission confronted them about their original false testimonies, the REAL story of NORAD's response was actually FAR BETTER than the story NORAD presented.

What I'd really like to know is WHY the "Cover Up" occured. It seems almost that NORAD were left hanging in order to cover up the FAA and higher level failures (no shoot-down order, for example).

How would they manage today?

If September 11 happened today, I believe NORAD would successfully shoot down all 4 aircraft before they reached their targets (assuming the passengers didn't kill the hijackers first!)

But I don't see the main difference as being an improvement at NORAD's end (although I understand the number of alert bases has been increased, and NORAD now respond to incidents outside the ADIZ).

The main difference, IMHO, is in preventing transponders being turned off, having a pre-existing shoot-down order, and improved FAA protocols that mean any incident is immediately reported to NORAD.

One thing I didn't quote was some of the reactions by the NEADS crew as they watched aircraft after aircraft slam into its target. I really feel for them.

They were trying to locate a red ball in a room full of green balls, while blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs, and a dozen colour-blind people screaming directions to them all at once.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 01:31 AM   #5
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,053
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
It seems almost that NORAD were left hanging in order to cover up the FAA and higher level failures (no shoot-down order, for example).
The shoot-down order was passed from the PEOC to Cheyenne Mountain down to the AOCs - including NEADS. The NEADS MCC expressed confusion over the order to the Commission, though it was fairly clear:

Quote:
10:31 Vice president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].
Evidence that the order was relayed to NEADS can also be found in their audio loop:

Quote:
Floor Leadership: You need to read this.. . .The Region Commander has declared that we can shoot down aircraft that do not respond to our direction. Copy that?

Controllers: Copy that, sir.

Floor Leadership: So if you're trying to divert somebody and he won't divert-

Controllers: DO [Director of Operations] is saying no.

Floor Leadership: No? It came over the chat.. . .You got a conflict on that direction?

Controllers: Right now no, but-

Floor Leadership: Okay? Okay, you read that from the Vice President, right? Vice President has cleared. Vice President has cleared us to intercept traffic and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 02:23 AM   #6
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
The shoot-down order was passed from the PEOC to Cheyenne Mountain down to the AOCs - including NEADS. The NEADS MCC expressed confusion over the order to the Commission, though it was fairly clear:

I mean earlier than this. I know there was a shoot down order given at 1018, but what I mean is there was no protocol ALREADY IN PLACE. In order for NEADS to be effective, they needed to have permission to shoot down a hostile civilian aircraft BEFORE Tuesday morning.

As is clearly shown on the NEADS tapes, prior to this executive order (which came 15 minutes too late to deal with any of the hijacked aircraft) NEADS were not permitted to shoot down any aircraft.

As the NEADS MCC (Nasypany) so eloquently summed it up:

Quote:
10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
This is more what I am referring to.

Also of interest, the tapes indicate NEADS were oblivious to the F-16s being launched independently from Andrews AFB to establish a CAP over Washington DC.

I'd be curious to hear a timeline of that independent chain of command, because IIRC someone gave those pilots permission to shoot down any hostile aircraft before the executive shoot-down order was given.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 03:30 AM   #7
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,053
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
As the NEADS MCC (Nasypany) so eloquently summed it up:
I was wondering if the MCC and the DO were the same uniform. I guess your quote that clears that quite nicely.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 02:45 PM   #8
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
another interesting thing to note, as far as the quotes here go, there doesnt seem to be any interference of confusion resulting from the wargames going on

Quote:
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
i would probably expect that sort of exchange whether there were excercises scheduled or not
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 05:55 PM   #9
Wolverine
Grumpy Stinky Mustelid
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,678
Thanks for posting this, gumboot. That's the most sobering sequence I've come across in recent memory.

Quote:
"General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south in fact skewed the whole reporting of 9/11?" he asked Arnold, who replied that he had not been aware of those facts when he testified the year before.

"I've been in government and I know what spin is," Farmer, the senior counsel, told me. The military's story was "a whole different order of magnitude than spin. It simply wasn't true." Farmer says he doesn't understand why the military felt the need to spin at all.
Particularly in light of examples like this, I think ample reason exists for outcry in response to any misleading or false testimonies having been provided to the 9/11 Commission. Even recognizing our relatively stout defensive capabilities, the infrastructure simply wasn't able to respond more effectively to these threats, under these circumstances. We were vulnerable to such an attack, and likely still are, albeit to a lesser degree than five years ago.

For many believers, I suspect these prevalent conspiratorial scenarios take root as some sort of coping mechanism to counter or ease that notion of vulnerability -- "this couldn't have just happened, therefore it was either allowed to happen or perpetrated by the government". Using the non-sequitur as your chosen springboard, I'd imagine one could rationalize just about anything.

But as noted in the article, there are legitimate causes for concern here over real issues which do need to be resolved, without any need to introduce untenable connect-the-dots conspiratorial allegations, nor claims of demolitions or UFOs (paranormal hats, if you prefer).
Wolverine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2006, 06:06 PM   #10
TobiasTheViking
Resident Viking Autist
 
TobiasTheViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,925
I really want a copy of those tapes.

For that matter, i also want a copy of the feed from CNN from when it happened, i currently have 6 hours of footage from CNN, but it starts some 3 hours after the incident. *sigh* I just can't track it down.
__________________
He pricked me with his prick that prick - NobbyNobbs
Endearingly Obnoxious - Rebecca Watson
TobiasTheViking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 01:36 PM   #11
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I believe their response was exceptional. They made a number of instinctive decisions that proved to be the correct ones.
Their response was as I would have expected. The call to launch was what I would expect anyone in the Major's position to make. The AF are very disciplined in their RoE, procedural orientation, and execution. The problem of FAA/NEADS information flow is another matter, and is what caused the critical launch delay.
Quote:
1) The fact that NORAD are not responsible for intercepts outside the ADIZ.
That doesn't sound right. Are you saying that once inside the ADIZ, NORAD passes the responsibility to another agency (FAA supported by ACC), or is your assertion that beyond the ADIZ, which is even further outside the US airspace than the ADIZ, NORAD has no responsiblity for intercept? CONUS airspace is INSIDE the ADIZ, the ADIZ is an outer buffer where 'unkown riders' are to be intercepted.
Quote:
2) The fact that standard proceedure for a hijacking was not to involve the military directly
Try this: Hijack policy was to try to get the plane on the ground with no pax hurt. Killing a plane full of "innocents" (recall KAL 007 please) is a prospect no American politician wanted to envision, or deal with, though military folks tend to be more practical on that score.
Quote:
The fact that NORAD's resources had been slashed, resulting in too few aircraft, and out-dated equipment
All DoD activities had been slashed from 1991-2001. We weren't at war anymore, hadn't you heard? It was the Peace Dividend, the New World Order, and Kumbaya would be sung all day long. The equipment was not nearly as critical to success as processes and procedures, and drills, between FAA and NEADS. Sorry, no money and no political will for exercises that "weren't necessary," since we weren't at war anymore . . . Not to mention, alert 5 is too expensive to keep up all the time (strip alert) in pilot and aircraft costs, once the Cold War is over and Peace Dividend attitude sets in. From the description you provide, the fighters were on Alert 30.
Quote:
That there was no standing order for shooting down a hostile civilian aircraft (there was no concept of a hostile civilian aircraft!)
True enough. Such a standing order scares politicians silly, and the citizenry as well. Liability claim anyone? Law suits? Deep Pockets?
Quote:
5) The fact that the transponders were disabled
The Transponder has to be turned off/stby once you land. It has to be switchable. It is controlled by electricity. It is operated like a UHF/VHF readio. All you have to do is pull the circuit breaker powering it and it goes off, if you aren't clever enough to use the ON/OFF/STBY/EMER/Test switch.

The standard Mode III/C set up replies to a radar interrogation signal with pressure altitude information, and 4 digit Identification Squawk, to ATC.
Quote:
6) The poor supply of information from badly informed civilian ATCs and the FAA
Let's not bust ATC's nuts too hard here. Their day to day mindset does not lend itself too well to an immediate transition to a war over CONUS footing, pre 9-11. They are balls to the wall fitting a growing number of airliners into finite time-space windows, particularly in the East Coast Air Route Traffic Control System. (The Northeast is especially clogged) Losing a squawk, or losing radio contact with an airliner happens quite often, and the first procedure is to re-establish contact. (That wonderful call "On Guard" / 243.0 MHz on UHF, 121.5 VHF.) It usually gets sorted out in a few minutes. If a plane has a fire, or massive electrical failure, it takes a bit longer. Getting through the presumption of "lost comm" "bad squawk" "electrical problem" to "hijacked" takes a bit of time and decision tree flow. Also, no standard "I have been hijacked" squawk nor any radio call ever showed up, from the evidence shown to date. Those are trigger events for some FAA actions.
Quote:
What I'd really like to know is WHY the "Cover Up" occured. It seems almost that NORAD were left hanging in order to cover up the FAA and higher level failures
Concur. Arse covering at the cabinet level.

If 9-11 happens today?

The first plane hits the WTC 1 building. Maybe the second plane gets shot down before it hits WTC 2. But today, it would be a different target.

77 and 93 most likely probably get intercepted. Also, on all four planes, the passengers get involved. Possibly an air marshall. Possibly the pilots who fly armed handle part of the problem.
Quote:
The main difference, IMHO, is in preventing transponders being turned off,
You can't do that from the ground, the cockpit occupants control the transponder.
Quote:
having a pre-existing shoot-down order,
Works for me.
Quote:
and improved FAA protocols that mean any incident is immediately reported to NORAD.
A better process and procedure for handoff to ACC from FAA is doubtless now in place. Military folks do "Lessons Learned" and change procedures (ostensibly to better ones) with great frequency and energy. And the wheel never gets re-invented.
Quote:
They were trying to locate a red ball in a room full of green balls, while blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs, and a dozen colour-blind people screaming directions to them all at once.
That's what they do for a living, and they are pretty good at it. Given the sparse fighter assets available, no lock on the targets, no radar track to hand off, no tankers in the air, no tankers scrambled, no AWACS, they did pretty darned well. The disconnect between Giant Killer (the Navy Controllers for the airspace off of Langley AFB) and NEADS for a required vector for the fighters (by phone, hi pri) was a slight boo boo. Again, Giant Killer was probably also playing a bit of catch up and "WTF is going on?" at about the same time as NEADS is.

Aside: I have been called by the Air Force intercepter crowd in the ADIZ when my Mode IV IFF squawk (Transponder) was the wrong day, and I realized that the "unknown rider" call was for me. Mucho Red in the Face. That was a rough day, thanks to the arse chewing I got on return to base.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 07:40 PM   #12
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
That doesn't sound right. Are you saying that once inside the ADIZ, NORAD passes the responsibility to another agency (FAA supported by ACC), or is your assertion that beyond the ADIZ, which is even further outside the US airspace than the ADIZ, NORAD has no responsiblity for intercept? CONUS airspace is INSIDE the ADIZ, the ADIZ is an outer buffer where 'unkown riders' are to be intercepted.

The FAA manages and tracks aircraft passing through the USCON ADIZ. In the event of some sort of "incident" NORAD are scrambled to escort aircraft inside the ADIZ - in the 6 months prior to 9/11 there were 67 scrambles.

Outside the ADIZ is the "Defence Zone". This includes airspace over the USCON, and airspace over, well, the rest of the world, basically.

During peace time, the Defence Zone is not monitored for threats. Intercepts do not occur within the Defence Zone unless a higher level of DEFCON is entered, in which case NORAD takes direct command of the Defence Zone. In the 10 years prior to 9/11 NORAD were not involved in a single scramble inside the Defence Zone - it's not their job.

There was ONE intercept involving the military inside the Defence Zone - Payne Stewart's learjet - however this intercept did not involve NORAD.


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Try this: Hijack policy was to try to get the plane on the ground with no pax hurt. Killing a plane full of "innocents" (recall KAL 007 please) is a prospect no American politician wanted to envision, or deal with, though military folks tend to be more practical on that score.

Well, yeah. If the hijacking is inside the ADIZ, NORAD scramble to escort the hijacked aircraft to an airport - standard proceedure is to tail the aircraft 5 miles back.

In the event of a hijacking in the USCON Defence Zone, the FAA hand the entire situation over to the FBI, and it would be up to the FBI to determine whether a military escort was required. In the event that they did use a military escort, there is no reason to assume they would involve NORAD.


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
All DoD activities had been slashed from 1991-2001. We weren't at war anymore, hadn't you heard? It was the Peace Dividend, the New World Order, and Kumbaya would be sung all day long. The equipment was not nearly as critical to success as processes and procedures, and drills, between FAA and NEADS.
Why pay for blank ammunition when soldiers on exercise can just make "bang bang" noises? (Which quickly turned into "budget cuts!" "budget cuts!" noises instead - and no, I'm not joking)

It could have been worse. In 1993 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that all full time alert stations were completely scrapped as unnecessary. Someone else saw reason, and on that occasion it was only stripped to 28 aircraft at 14 bases.


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Let's not bust ATC's nuts too hard here. Their day to day mindset does not lend itself too well to an immediate transition to a war over CONUS footing, pre 9-11. They are balls to the wall fitting a growing number of airliners into finite time-space windows, particularly in the East Coast Air Route Traffic Control System. (The Northeast is especially clogged) Losing a squawk, or losing radio contact with an airliner happens quite often, and the first procedure is to re-establish contact.

Oh I'm not saying it's their fault - they could only work with what they had. I mean more that the lack of communication between centres (probably because they weren't networked because that'd cost money!). You ended up with multiple centres calling in the same hijackings, but of course because there was no transponder NEADS had to treat them as different threats.

Not to mention Flight 11 managed to enter New York and plough into the WTC without New York Centre ever being aware of the threat...

Surely if there's a hijacking and he's headed a certain way, you notify surrounding Centres right?

In addition, I am sure, if the poor fellas were given state of the art equipment there'd be some way for a computer to cross reference primary and secondary radar contacts real time, thus enabling primary contacts without a sqawk to stand out.

It's a case of the people with the budgets going "What's the bare minimum we need?" Instead of "What if?"


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
If 9-11 happens today?

The first plane hits the WTC 1 building. Maybe the second plane gets shot down before it hits WTC 2. But today, it would be a different target.

77 and 93 most likely probably get intercepted. Also, on all four planes, the passengers get involved. Possibly an air marshall. Possibly the pilots who fly armed handle part of the problem.
Well, obviously I think the reality is the hijacking would never occur now - the people on the plane would stop it.

But pretending it did, I pretty much agree with you - although I'd reckon NORAD would have a good chance of getting a successful intercept on the first aircraft.

Bear in mind, NORAD now have many more alert bases (the exact number is classified, but I hear it's at least 26). Secondly, handover is going to be more rapid.

Bear in mind AA11's timeline was:

0813 - Transponder off
0820 - IFF off, deviates from flight plan
0824 - AA11 turns for New York
0837 - NORAD notified
0846 - F-15s launched
0846 - AA11 crashes
0907 - F-15s enter holding pattern over Long Island

Now, if you consider two significant changes - Boeing have modified their aircraft so the transponders can't be interferred with and ATC handover to NORAD is much faster - and take into account that the Langley F-16's were airborne in a minute, here's a potential modern day timeline:

0813 - Hijacking occurs - ATC notify NEADS who put fighters on Battle Stations
0820 - IFF off, deviates from flight plan - NEADS launch interceptors

Immediately you're 25 minutes up on 9/11. Add to that more bases, which means shorter flight plan for fighters, and hey presto...successful intercept.


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
You can't do that from the ground, the cockpit occupants control the transponder.
I believe after 9/11 Boeing modified the transponders so hijackers can't turn them off.


Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
The disconnect between Giant Killer (the Navy Controllers for the airspace off of Langley AFB) and NEADS for a required vector for the fighters (by phone, hi pri) was a slight boo boo. Again, Giant Killer was probably also playing a bit of catch up and "WTF is going on?" at about the same time as NEADS is.

Yup I agree on that one. That was probably their only genuine serious misstep. The Navy Controllers clearly had no idea what was going on... heh.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 07:48 PM   #13
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I believe after 9/11 Boeing modified the transponders so hijackers can't turn them off.
-Andrew
I'll believe that when I believe Boeing makes and modifies transponders. So, let's see what they could do with the airframe and electrical systems to ensure that an avionics device with a multiposition switch, required to operate under FAA rules for use of a transponder, is always powered on when the aircraft is in the air.

*hmmm, ship aground switch that leaves xponder powered on all the time, default weight on wheels, power circuit always opened.

*hmm, avionics fire, I have to turn off avionics

*Hmm, still drawing current, can't stop eletcric fire.

Sorry, Gumboot, not buying it.

One CB, and it's off.

Where did you hear this, may I ask?

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 07:51 PM   #14
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
I'll believe that when I believe Boeing makes and modifies transponders. So, let's see what they could do with the airframe and electrical systems to ensure that an avionics device with a multiposition switch, required to operate under FAA rules for use of a transponder, is always powered on when the aircraft is in the air.

*hmmm, ship aground switch that leaves xponder powered on all the time, default weight on wheels, power circuit always opened.

*hmm, avionics fire, I have to turn off avionics

*Hmm, still drawing current, can't stop eletcric fire.

Sorry, Gumboot, not buying it.

One CB, and it's off.

Where did you hear this, may I ask?

DR
perhaps they just made it more difficult to turn off, a per-flight pin number maybe?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 08:59 PM   #15
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Where did you hear this, may I ask?

I stumbled across a PDF from Boeing while roaming around looking for 9/11 stuff. Haven't been able to find it again, because I have no idea where I found it in the first place.

Have found this now outdated article (2002) which talks about the FAA's plans to modify transponders.

Avionics Magazine

Reading this article, I now think maybe the Boeing PDF was a sort of summary of how their aircraft could be made safer. While it included modifications they themselves had introduced (like the armour cockpit doors) it might have included recommended modifications or something similar (which would explain why it included transponders).

Anyway, as early as 2002 the FAA was busy working on a method for preventing terrorists from turning off the sqawk. I'll assume for now that they've come up with a solution.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2006, 09:26 PM   #16
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,053
The real solution, I think, lies more in a passive interrogator scheme instead of active advertising.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2006, 06:50 AM   #17
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I'll assume for now that they've come up with a solution.
-Andrew
Don't.

Thanks for the link.

I was thinking about this last night and came up with idea #2 (roughly) on my own.

Originally Posted by the article
Installing a remotely located transponder control head, preset to the hijack code, in the avionics equipment bay. The panic button would feed into it. This method, which requires adding a new unit to the aircraft, also meets all derived requirements. Airbus recommends this solution to its customers.
This would need to be a self contained electrical circuit, independent of the general electrical distribution system and busses, battery powered, to be used like ELT's are used. Periodic inspections, preflight tests, and battery replacement would make this mod almost identical to an ELT. Hitting the panic button would power it on, and a sequenced action would be to then open the circuit between the cockpit and the back up xponder.

The incorporation of signals from a transducer tied to the pitot-static systems, independent of the flight instrument suite in the cockpit, would require a bit of a mod, a bit of plumbing, some wiring, but in the end could be of benefit in "other than hijacking" events. In the event of a complete electrical failure due to a fire (very unlikely thanks to redundant systems design) you'd have a back up squawk passing altitude information. The only drawback would be its preset to hijack squawk, and the cost benefit analysis would probably dictate that there is enough electrical load redundancy to account for most electrical malfunctions without having to use that back up in other than a hijack situation.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2006, 06:53 AM   #18
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
The real solution, I think, lies more in a passive interrogator scheme instead of active advertising.
I completely disagree. Besidses passive interrogator being an oxymoron, cost is a variable. There is not infinite money to implement any such solution, and it is only part of the answer to the problem presented. (See the link gumboot provided on the Transponder mod discussion.)

Transponders are inherently active. and interrogation in inherently a challenge reply process.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2006, 08:45 AM   #19
chracatoa
Scholar
 
chracatoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 109
It may be a stupid question, but how about a system that highlights all radar activity without transponders?
chracatoa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2006, 09:03 AM   #20
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by chracatoa View Post
It may be a stupid question, but how about a system that highlights all radar activity without transponders?
Wonderful, a radar presentation that is all clutter. How useful is that for the problem at hand? It isn't.

About primary and secondary returns. The secondary return (IFF) sends two extra bits of info associated with a radar blip: discrete indentification of the airplane, and its Mode C/Altitude (Pressure altitude referenced to either Mean Sea Lever and Barometric pressure, or reference to 29.92" Hg above 18, 000 feet, and reported as Flight Level.)

Quite a bit of ATC's coverage isn't with primary returns, though once one gets into heavily congested terminal areas, primary returns could be expected on most tracks. Primary returns are the radar "blip" on the screen. Any VFR traffic that is non-squawking, and there are a lot of light civil aircraft flying about on any given day, would provide a return without the critical identifying and ALTITUDE information.

No, before you ask, ATC does not use 3-D radar (like an SPS-48) to track air traffic.

Your suggestion that a track while scan or MTI or type radar be retrofitted to all FAA radar sites might not be a bad one, but it is a costly one. Add to that the Congressional mandate to "Go all GPS by 2006" for navigational aids, with an eye to cutting costs in the ATC infra structure and manning, and I don't see your suggestion as remotely implementable in the near term, nor the correct approach to resolving the problelm.

Cost is a variable. Coming up with effective, and cost effective, solutions is what needs doing, not throwing money away on marginal returns solutions.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2006, 10:38 AM   #21
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,053
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Transponders are inherently active. and interrogation in inherently a challenge reply process.
Right - I was speaking to the overall scheme. Certainly cost is a factor. A passive IFF mode has served air forces quite well over the years and would be an effective failsafe for those times that domestic airspace again becomes a battle-space.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2006, 08:36 AM   #22
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,155
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Right - I was speaking to the overall scheme. Certainly cost is a factor. A passive IFF mode has served air forces quite well over the years and would be an effective failsafe for those times that domestic airspace again becomes a battle-space.
You refer to procedural IFF? RTF procedures?

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2006, 01:07 AM   #23
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by chracatoa View Post
It may be a stupid question, but how about a system that highlights all radar activity without transponders?
That would be the primary radar screen - which is what they had to use on September 11.

The problem is (as they found out) you don't know where a given aircraft is. When you have literally hundreds of aircraft in your airspace, trying to identify one is impossible.

If we look at the flights on 9/11, AA11 was initially located on primary, then lost when it entered New York Centre airspace. As a result no one knew it had crashed, and NORAD ended up chasing a ghost AA11 to Washington DC (AA11's projected direction from point at which it was lost on Boston Centre's Primary).

UA175 was never located on primary, and AA77 was only located on primary 5 minutes before it hit The Pentagon.

UA93, likewise, was never located on primary.

To make matters worse, twice in the first 90 minutes of NORAD operations, they were sent after their own fighters because the ATCs picked up the primary contacts of the NORAD fighters and thought they were hijacked airliners.

Now, I made an interesting discovery from all this information:

Airlines independently track all their aircraft - which enabled United Airlines to confirm that UA 175 had hit the WTC within minutes. Sadly American Airlines were not so forthcoming with their own information.

If Airlines can track their own aircraft independent of the ATC system, surely a secondary tracking system using the same methods can be run parallel to the ATC, to be used in emergencies.

Secondly, I am sure by now the computer technology exists for a program to cross-reference primary and secondary radar returns in real time. This would make locating aircraft without transponders as easy as looking at the primary radar screen (I imagine non-cross-checked contact appearing in a different colour or whatever).

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2006, 01:12 AM   #24
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Quote:
That would be the primary radar screen - which is what they had to use on September 11.

The problem is (as they found out) you don't know where a given aircraft is. When you have literally hundreds of aircraft in your airspace, trying to identify one is impossible.
i think his suggestion would be taking primary radar and dropping off any returns with transponders, leaving only the "blips" with no identification

of course that could still very well be a mess too
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2006, 01:17 AM   #25
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
i think his suggestion would be taking primary radar and dropping off any returns with transponders, leaving only the "blips" with no identification

of course that could still very well be a mess too

Oh right, that's very much what I am suggesting then - except I am suggesting simply having them in a different colour. I suppose you could have a third screen that only outputs blips without transponder information.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2006, 05:56 AM   #26
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,029
Any objections to me posting this timeline on the Ed Schultz board and the loose change board.

Thank you

dave
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2006, 08:00 AM   #27
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Any objections to me posting this timeline on the Ed Schultz board and the loose change board.

Thank you

dave
No, please do. I only ask that you include the links to the original sources from which I compiled it.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 06:18 PM   #28
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Bumped for Geggy
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:32 PM   #29
kevin
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,666
for being the masterminds behind a huge conspiracy these guys getting more information from CNN than the airport is telling....
kevin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:40 PM   #30
kevin
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
preventing transponders being turned off, having a pre-existing shoot-down order
I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I can see situations where the transponder makes the plane a terrorist target and the ability to turn them off might be beneficial.

This is one of those reponses that seems to be fighting the last war, rather than anticipating the next one.
kevin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:44 PM   #31
kevin
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Secondly, I am sure by now the computer technology exists for a program to cross-reference primary and secondary radar returns in real time.
I think you can accomplish this with one radar and the transponder information. Just difference the last pass with the current pass, anything moving with no current transponder info is highlighted.
kevin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:59 PM   #32
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
I'm not convinced this is a good idea. I can see situations where the transponder makes the plane a terrorist target and the ability to turn them off might be beneficial.

Such as?

I should clarify, obviously you have to be able to turn transponders off, otherwise you get clutter from aircraft on the ground. I mean more making them more tamper-proof so terrorists can't disable them.

I believe they have already done this.

You are right of course, these sorts of measures are fighting the old war - I propose that passengers will prevent anyone ever hijacking a civil airliner again.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2006, 02:37 AM   #33
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 16,607
BUMP because it is relevant to current discussions and a shame to see such great work go to waste.
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2006, 09:05 AM   #34
Josh Redstone
Thinker
 
Josh Redstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 203
Agreed. Excellent job on this by the way =)
Josh Redstone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2006, 11:34 AM   #35
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
Bump because there is a lot of nonsense being talked about NORAD yet again.

Also, here is Gumboot's full document on this.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf

via

http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
maccy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2006, 03:59 PM   #36
gorgg
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17
Great job indeed.

I have one small remark though.
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Well, yeah. If the hijacking is inside the ADIZ, NORAD scramble to escort the hijacked aircraft to an airport - standard proceedure is to tail the aircraft 5 miles back.

In the event of a hijacking in the USCON Defence Zone, the FAA hand the entire situation over to the FBI, and it would be up to the FBI to determine whether a military escort was required. In the event that they did use a military escort, there is no reason to assume they would involve NORAD.
It looks to me this contradicts with what's in the commission report (chapter 1):
Quote:
Interagency Collaboration. The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.101

FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by "squawking" a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate.102

If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command.103
gorgg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2006, 04:11 PM   #37
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
I just posted the following over at Conspiracy Smasher, I believe it has relevance here:

Quote:
Dumbocrap believes one of two things:

That dedicated servicemen from two countries with the most advanced equipment and training in the world are too stupid to be able to tell when they are being manipulated. He believes that they are so moronic that even after 5 years they can't figure it out.

Or...

He believes that US and Canadian servicemen know what happened and they don't care that they helped kill the people they swore to protect.
If the twoofers want to trash NORAD, they can bring it on. It's a free country (thanks to those they accuse). But let's not let them get away with denying the complete ramifications of their accusations.

If someone believes these men are stupid, evil or both, they should say it. They should not be allowed to state thier accusations and then say they aren't trying to insult our nations servicemen.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2006, 11:52 PM   #38
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by gorgg View Post
Great job indeed.

I have one small remark though.

It looks to me this contradicts with what's in the commission report (chapter 1):

Not really. What the Commission Report failed to mention was those proceedures were only in place for military intercepts WITHIN the ADIZ.

I'm not sure why the Commission Report failed to make this distinction, because it is fairly clear in FAA regulations. The FAA can only directly involve NORAD in operations over CONUS Airspace when a "Special Air Security Situation" (not sure on the precise phrasing) has been declared - in other words, when the country is on a heightened state of alert.

Intercept proceedures are dictated by the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual, CH 5, Sect. 6 - National Security and Intercept Proceedures

Which states:
Quote:
a. National security in the control of air traffic is governed by 14 CFR Part 99.
And 14 CFP Pt.99 states:

Quote:
(a) This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B.

(b) Except for §§99.7 [special security instructions], 99.13 [transponders], and 99.15 [position reporting] this subpart does not apply to the operation of any aircraft-

(1) Within the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia, or within the State of Alaska, on a flight which remains within 10 nautical miles of the point of departure;
-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 07:55 PM   #39
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Not really. What the Commission Report failed to mention was those proceedures were only in place for military intercepts WITHIN the ADIZ.

I'm not sure why the Commission Report failed to make this distinction, because it is fairly clear in FAA regulations. The FAA can only directly involve NORAD in operations over CONUS Airspace when a "Special Air Security Situation" (not sure on the precise phrasing) has been declared - in other words, when the country is on a heightened state of alert.
Sorry for bumping this thread but the Commission Report gives some pretty clear references and I don't see how there's anything in these pre-9/11 procedures that indicates it would be a problem to involve NORAD outside the ADIZ:
Originally Posted by Commission Report
FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by "squawking" a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington. Headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate.102
Originally Posted by Commission Report References
102. See FAA regulations, Hijacked Aircraft, Order 7110.65M, para.10-2-6 (2001); David Bottiglia interview (Oct. 1, 2003); FAA report,"Crisis Management Handbook for Significant Events," Feb. 15, 2000. From interviews of controllers at various FAA centers, we learned that an air traffic controller's first response to an aircraft incident is to notify a supervisor, who then notifies the traffic management unit and the operations manager in charge.The FAA center next notifies the appropriate regional operations center (ROC), which in turn contacts FAA headquarters. Biggio stated that for American 11, the combination of three factors-loss of radio contact, loss of transponder signal, and course deviation-was serious enough for him to contact the ROC in Burlington, Mass. However, without hearing the threatening communication from the cockpit, he doubts Boston Center would have recognized or labeled American 11 "a hijack." Terry Biggio interview (Sept. 22, 2003); see also Shirley Miller interview (Mar. 30, 2004); Monte Belger interview (Apr. 20, 2004).
Quote:
FAA Order 7110.65M: Air Traffic control

10-2-6. HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
When you observe a Mode 3/A Code 7500, do the following:
NOTE-
Military facilities will notify the appropriate FAA ARTCC, or the host nation agency responsible for en route control, of any indication that an aircraft is being hijacked. They will also provide full cooperation with the civil agencies in the control of such aircraft.

EN ROUTE. During narrowband radar operations, Code 7500 causes HIJK to blink in the data block.
NOTE-
Only nondiscrete CODE 7500 will be decoded as the hijack code.
a. Acknowledge and confirm receipt of Code 7500 by asking the pilot to verify it. If the aircraft is not being subjected to unlawful interference, the pilot should respond to the query by broadcasting in the clear that he/she is not being subjected to unlawful interference. If the reply is in the affirmative or if no reply is received, do not question the pilot further but be responsive to the aircraft requests.
PHRASEOLOGY-
(Identification) (name of facility) VERIFY SQUAWKING 7500.
NOTE-
Code 7500 is only assigned upon notification from the pilot that his/her aircraft is being subjected to unlawful interference. Therefore, pilots have been requested to refuse the assignment of Code 7500 in any other situation and to inform the controller accordingly.
b. Notify supervisory personnel of the situation.
c. Flight follow aircraft and use normal handoff procedures without requiring transmissions or responses by aircraft unless communications have been established by the aircraft.
d. If aircraft are dispatched to escort the hijacked aircraft, provide all possible assistance to the escort aircraft to aid in placing them in a position behind the hijacked aircraft.
NOTE-
Escort procedures are contained in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Chapter 7, Escort of Hijacked Aircraft.
e. To the extent possible, afford the same control service to the aircraft operating VFR observed on the hijack code.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Code Monitor, Para 5-2-13.
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSEX/Documents/FAAprotocol.htm
Originally Posted by Commission Report
If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency. The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command.103
Originally Posted by Commission Report References
103. FAA regulations, Special Military Operations, Requests for Service, Order 7610.4J, paras. 7-1-1, 7-1-2 (2001); DOD memo, CJCS instruction, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," June 1, 2001.
Quote:
Chapter 7. Escort Of Hijacked Aircraft

Section 1. GENERAL
7-1-1. PURPOSE
The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft to:
a. Assure positive flight following.
b. Report unusual observances.
c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.
7-1-2. REQUESTS FOR SERVICE
The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. When the military can provide escort aircraft, the NMCC will advise the FAA hijack coordinator the identification and location of the squadron tasked to provide escort aircraft. NMCC will then authorize direct coordination between FAA and the designated military unit. When a NORAD resource is tasked, FAA will coordinate through the appropriate SOCC/ROCC.

http://web.archive.org/web/200111222...701.html#7-1-1

Peephole is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2007, 08:19 PM   #40
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Peephole View Post
Sorry for bumping this thread but the Commission Report gives some pretty clear references and I don't see how there's anything in these pre-9/11 procedures that indicates it would be a problem to involve NORAD outside the ADIZ:


You're quite right, I've done more research since then...

My issue is that CTers think there was a standard proceedure for the FAA directly involving NORAD alert aircraft (the only aircraft in the US on stand-by for scramble). This direct relationship is only for ADIZ flights.

As your documents show, the steps for involving the military in an event other than an ADIZ deviation are quite convoluted - and in fact we know that on 9/11, while attempts were made to follow these steps, in all cases they failed miserably.

(For example the ARTCCs couldn't even notify FAA HQ about UA175 or AA77 because the HQ staff were in a meeting about AA11 and directed not to be disturbed for any reason).

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.