A Question For Us Radar Controllers
Feb 21 2007, 09:05 AM
Group: Student Forum Pilot
Joined: 15-December 06
Member No.: 337
Hy, this is an italian Atcer, I have a question for all the radar controllers here:
In 2001 (in case of a plane with transponder off) did you have to select a different setting on your radar to see his primary response?
this is what the 9/11 commission says:
"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared."
Is there any guy (especially from Boston or New York, Cleveland, and Indianapolis) who can answer?
In the italian sistem if an aircraft loses the transponder signal (or if we have an a/c without it) we see directly (with no changings of configurations) a specific simbol (+) with the speed indication.
thanks for your help
This post has been edited by ivanvedder: Feb 21 2007, 09:22 AM
Mar 7 2007, 12:58 AM
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274
To put the JCS document in proper perspective, the Bush Regime is THE mst secretive, manipulative and evasive administration that ever ran the United States of America. So, if you or anyone else thinks that any changes in any policy in any department involved in any subject, is going to leave a paper-legal trail of words with which ther opponents will be ble to repudiate them...THINK AGAIN!!!!
They are all deliberately worded sets of "smoke screens" to hide their malfeasance.
So, the way that any changes need to be looked at should be looked at from the perspective of: WHY...did they make this change.
So, the June JCS "change" simple cleverly conneceted the FAA intercept procedures under the wings of the pentagon...even though the words do not expressly say that.
Like...DUUUUHHHHHH, were you expecting them to provide easy evidence against themselves?
You asked about the "law enforcement" role that the FAA played regarding aviation activities within US airspace. "Posse Comatatus" precludes the military from playing any "law enforcement" role towards civilians, so the FAA had to be given the "hammer" in controlling violations of law, and the assignment of military assets to emergencies of all shapes and sizes. Consequently, once an air traffic controller saw the need to use this nation's assets to either intercept, or assist aircraft needing such actions taken against them, then the FAA had the authority to do it. It has always been the FAA's call for servicing/assisting "in-flight-emergencies". The hijacking end of the military scrambling protocols were initiated by the FAA, but action was approved by the pentagon because they both "had time", and had to set up assets all along the flight paths of the "hijacked aircraft". They usually would fly to Cuba, or ask for ramsoms or some such thing.
OK, to your question about who locates aircraft needing the be dealt with.
The FAA...period. And it was always an easy thing to do. If you are reacting to the Vanity Fair "sh*t" put forth as the truth, just read Dr. David Ray Griffin's upcoming work in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking:". After this release, NEADS-NORAD will be speaking with testicle breah!
Next, the question about who "vectors" the interceptors to the "subject aircraft". Principally its the FAA controllers who do this and it IS still the FAA's airspace and separation criteria that are used until the "subject aircraft" and the "intercepting aircraft" are in close proximity. The FAA and NORAD-NEADS are in contact with each other as soon as is possible. Consequently, there is alotta talk back and forth with each working at identifying and locating all the aircraft in question, ie: the "subject aircraft" and the interceptors.
On 9/11/2001, there "appeared to be" some wrenches thrown in the gears by "moles" in the FAA ARTCC's in some aspects of the "hijack intercepts", if you want to call them that. But really, it simply had to do with the hijack protocol being used instead of the "in-flight-emergency" protocol.
Had the "scramble procedures" NOT been changed in June of 2001, each airliner that was "eventually determined to be hijacked" actually qualified as an "in-flight-emergency" WELL BEFORE they were ever considered a "hijack".
The "in-flight-emergency" protocol required giving PRIORITY OVER EVERY OTHER AIRCRAFT to the fighters as they tried to get to the stricken aircraft as soon as was POSSIBLE!
The "hijacking protocol" DOES NOT give such 'priority" to the fighters so they had to wait someplace to "fit in" to the ongoing traffic patterns.
Hence, a cleverly disguised "institutional stand-down" was established by Rummie's pentagon in June of 2001. And not one word needed to be spoken in doing so on 9/11/2001.
In other words, no "in-flight-emergenciy" scrambles were allowed from June 2001 until September 11, 2001...only the slow paced "hijack protocols".
On September 12th, 2001, all scrambles were put under the fast "in-flight-emergency" protocol and the slower protocol was discontinued..
Now, knowing the Bush Regime and its track record of "ethical behavior", who woud have guessed...aye?
Hope this helps...
Love, Peace and Justice...
How about that...
Love, Peace and Progress...
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 20th June 2013 - 04:43 AM|