The USAF has interepted many flights in the USA

[Thunder]

The truthers love to talk about how the USAF has intercepted lots of wayward flights over the USA.

But all of them, had their identification transponders on!!

How many flights have the USAF intercepted that had their transponders turned off?

I think the number is zero.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, another truther Canard, long dead, but never buried (unfortunately).

TAM:)

[Reheat]

Parky, this is not a real good topic because NORAD does not routinely release that kind of detailed information. That kind of information is sensitive, so we'll have to be selective on the direction the discussion takes if someone has that information.

If the topic addresses the difference between an intercept with and without a transponder in general perhaps something can be gained.

The ONLY intercept over the continental US in the past 10 years or so (to my knowledge and not counting 9/11) was the Payne Stewart Lear. That aircraft had it's transponder on. It is significant to note that intercept was NOT performed by NORAD.

Pre 9/11 NORAD Radars were fine in the direction where they were primarily concerned, over water in the ADIZ. This is where most intercepts occur even today.

In that area there is not much traffic and there is no ground clutter making very little difference to the ground based radars whether there is a transponder beacon or not. It makes no difference to the fighter at all either over land or over water with or without a transponder.

The usual intercept is for someone who misses the forecast ADIZ entry time and is not in communication with the controlling agency. That will get a fighter on your tail post haste.

The info published and propagated by DRG and Robin Hordin (among others) about loss of communication, course deviations, etc pre-9/11 prompting an intercept is pure nonsense.

Hostile aircraft headed toward the US obviously will not have a transponder, so it's ridiculous to assume it can not be done or is even difficult over water in the ADIZ.

There have been updates to the NORAD systems since 9/11, but I'm not familiar with exactly the improvements that have been made. There is also better coordination between NORAD and the FAA, but others can perhaps elaborate more on that.

In essence it does make a difference over land in areas of ground clutter, but not a significant difference in the ADIZ over water....

[gumboot]

As far as I'm aware the only "routine" intercepts performed by the US military over US airspace prior to 9/11 were over highly restricted airspace such as Groom Lake, and these would not be conducted by NORAD.

Prior to 9/11 one of the two most recent incidents were the intercept of Payne Stewart's learjet, which was not performed by NORAD fighters, was not a hijacking, involved an aircraft on a known constant heading with transponder in operation, was initially performed by a local aircraft already airborne, and took over 80 minutes.

The other was the escort of Lufthansa Flight 592 in February 1993, which did involve NORAD alert fighters. However this was a "traditional" hijacking, with the pilots in command of the flight at all times. It was hijacked en route from Frankfurt to Cairo. The aircraft then flew to Hanover where it was refueled before departing for New York. As such US authorities had about eight hours to decide how to deal with the hijacking, and fighters from Otis ANGB (including Timothy Duffy who would lead the scramble from Otis on 9/11) were scrambled to escort the airliner once it entered the ADIZ.

[Tweeter]

The truthers love to talk about how the USAF has intercepted lots of wayward flights over the USA.

But all of them, had their identification transponders on!!

How many flights have the USAF intercepted that had their transponders turned off?

I think the number is zero.

What are you trying to say?
That the USAF cant find a plane without a transponder.
Have you ever heard of "RADAR". The enemy doesnt turn on there transponder and then attack us. So which is it, is the whole military a bunch of bumbling fools or was it an inside job?

[Sabrina]

What are you trying to say?
That the USAF cant find a plane without a transponder.
Have you ever heard of "RADAR". The enemy doesnt turn on there transponder and then attack us. So which is it, is the whole military a bunch of bumbling fools or was it an inside job?

Did you even READ the rest of the thread? Your questions are addressed nicely in the rest of the posts AFTER Parky's.

[Reheat]

Hey tweet, is that you in your avatar?

[ElMondoHummus]

What are you trying to say?
That the USAF cant find a plane without a transponder.
Have you ever heard of "RADAR". The enemy doesnt turn on there transponder and then attack us. So which is it, is the whole military a bunch of bumbling fools or was it an inside job?

:confused:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117351
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117477 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117477)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

[Par]

Did you even READ the rest of the thread? Your questions are addressed nicely in the rest of the posts AFTER Parky's.


I think reading is something he neither does nor aspires to. He’s one of the few people I’ve come across who actually seem overtly proud of rejecting knowledge.

[pomeroo]

What are you trying to say?
That the USAF cant find a plane without a transponder.
Have you ever heard of "RADAR". The enemy doesnt turn on there transponder and then attack us. So which is it, is the whole military a bunch of bumbling fools or was it an inside job?


Answer: neither. You have, as you know, offered a false dichotomy.

[Reheat]

As far as I'm aware the only "routine" intercepts performed by the US military over US airspace prior to 9/11 were over highly restricted airspace such as Groom Lake, and these would not be conducted by NORAD.

Gumboot, I'm curious. I'm not familiar with anyone ever being intercepted over the Groom Lake area. I am very familiar with USAF aircraft who have strayed over the area and have been directed by a "giant voice" on guard to land immediately at Nellis where they are "debriefed". It's my guess civilian aircraft are treated the same way.

Are you guessing at this or do you have specific information?

[Drudgewire]

Payne Stewart

Payne Stewart


This is the whole answer. Both to the OP who says it's never happened and to twoofers who think we can just send out fighter jets and intercept a plane not broadcasting a signal in seconds.

And its also the answer to "who used to wear those dreadfully ugly pants on the PGA tour?"

[gumboot]

Gumboot, I'm curious. I'm not familiar with anyone ever being intercepted over the Groom Lake area. I am very familiar with USAF aircraft who have strayed over the area and have been directed by a "giant voice" on guard to land immediately at Nellis where they are "debriefed". It's my guess civilian aircraft are treated the same way.

Are you guessing at this or do you have specific information?


That's pure speculation on my part. Despite what ChildlikeEmpress thinks, I have never worked for any branch of the US government, secret and all powerful or otherwise... :p

You could be quite right. There's some evidence that fighters used to intercept trespassers, but the most recent I can find is a flight of USAF F-105s that got intercepted by F-101s in 1963.

[Reheat]

Gumboot, I'm curious. I'm not familiar with anyone ever being intercepted over the Groom Lake area.

Are you guessing at this or do you have specific information?

That's pure speculation on my part.

I've just never heard of any USAF aircraft being intercepted there. But, that certainly doesn't mean there haven't been. Again, USAF aircraft are required to land at Nellis, no if, and, or buts about it. I suspect they track civilians via the FAA provided they can not reach them on a guard frequency.

I know of no aircraft that are maintained on alert to carry out intercepts either. Of course, there are fighters all over the Nellis area, so it would be possible to divert one for that purpose, but I've never heard of any aircraft being used for that purpose.

[gumboot]

I've just never heard of any USAF aircraft being intercepted there. But, that certainly doesn't mean there haven't been. Again, USAF aircraft are required to land at Nellis, no if, and, or buts about it. I suspect they track civilians via the FAA provided they can not reach them on a guard frequency.

I know of no aircraft that are maintained on alert to carry out intercepts either. Of course, there are fighters all over the Nellis area, so it would be possible to divert one for that purpose, but I've never heard of any aircraft being used for that purpose.


As mentioned the only one I'm aware of is in October 1963:

A flight of three F-105 Thunderchiefs, led by British exchange pilot Anthony "Bugs" Bendell, was on a practice nuclear weapon delivery sortie about 80 miles north of Nellis AFB when one aircraft experienced an oil pressure malfunction. One F-105 returned to Nellis while Bendell led the stricken craft to the airfield at Groom Lake. After making a pass over the field with no response to distress calls, Bendell advised the student pilot to land. At this point, two F-101 Voodoos intercepted Bendell and forced him to land also.

Source (http://area51specialprojects.com/area51_timeline.html)

[GreNME]

Gumboot, I'm curious. I'm not familiar with anyone ever being intercepted over the Groom Lake area. I am very familiar with USAF aircraft who have strayed over the area and have been directed by a "giant voice" on guard to land immediately at Nellis where they are "debriefed". It's my guess civilian aircraft are treated the same way.

Are you guessing at this or do you have specific information?

I took Gumboot's "like Groom Lake" comment literally. While Groom Lake's relative distance from most flight paths makes it unlikely, there are several high-security airspaces in the southwestern US, specifically in New Mexico, Arizona, and I believe also in Colorado and southern Utah. I wouldn't say that incidents are common (I wouldn't know, I'm not in the military or working at any of the sites), but the probability of a notable number of intercepted aircraft is fairly high.

I know that the airbase next to ABQ airport has fighters up in the air a lot of the time during the week, usually training, testing, and/or transport from/to other locations. Albuquerque happens to be within flying distance of a couple of restricted areas (notably White Sands, though that's a hike for a fighter). It's not inconceivable that they've dealt with errant aircraft before.

[I Ratant]

:The usual intercept is for someone who misses the forecast ADIZ entry time and is not in communication with the controlling agency. That will get a fighter on your tail post haste.
.
It would look like this...
They sent us a bill for the service, too!
(That's the left horizontal of a Lockheed Tristar that entered the ADIZ incorrectly.)

[Homeland Insurgency]

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

1. Even before it became clear that the September 11 flights had been hijacked, or that the intent was to use these aircraft in kamikaze attacks, their diversions from flight plan should have activated routine responses for dealing with errant planes. Civilian and military regulations and longstanding working procedures for commercial passenger planes and other aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules (”IFR”) call upon air traffic controllers under the Federal Aviation Administration (”FAA”) to alert NORAD upon determining that a flight has veered significantly from the route assigned to it by controllers; has ceased responding to ground control; or is an “unknown.” NORAD’s role in that case is to issue “scramble orders” for interception of the errant flight by jet fighters from U.S. Air Force Bases (”AFBs”). Interception of an errant flight allows for visual reconnaissance of the situation and a graduated menu of possible further actions (these might include attempts at radio contact, looking into the cockpit of the errant aircraft, visual signals such as tipping wings, attempts to force a landing, etc.).


http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert
fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)
1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these
incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total
activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually
inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.
Appendix I contains additional information on the scramble activity
at each air defense unit and alert site and on the continental air
defense and air sovereignty missions.

[gumboot]

Why isn't this in the 9/11 subforum?

[GreNME]

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php




http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

Hi there, HI. I'd like for you to answer a question for me (please).

You see the fas.org link you gave there? Of those flights, where do you think the majority of them occurred? More precisely, do you think it was over a specific portion of continental US soil, over US soil including Alaska, Hawaii, and its territories, over continental US borders, over water (including Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico), or do you posit something different?

[Reheat]

I took Gumboot's "like Groom Lake" comment literally. While Groom Lake's relative distance from most flight paths makes it unlikely, there are several high-security airspaces in the southwestern US, specifically in New Mexico, Arizona, and I believe also in Colorado and southern Utah. I wouldn't say that incidents are common (I wouldn't know, I'm not in the military or working at any of the sites), but the probability of a notable number of intercepted aircraft is fairly high.

I know that the airbase next to ABQ airport has fighters up in the air a lot of the time during the week, usually training, testing, and/or transport from/to other locations. Albuquerque happens to be within flying distance of a couple of restricted areas (notably White Sands, though that's a hike for a fighter). It's not inconceivable that they've dealt with errant aircraft before.

No, the number of intercepts for those restricted areas of which you speak is NOT high. The only area that is really sensitive and for which action might be taken is Area 51. The others are at times dangerous to enter because of the activity being conducted, but an errant aircraft would not likely be intercepted.

I seriously doubt the ABQ ANG has ever intercepted anyone. That is not their job (they are an Air to Ground Unit) and no area in the vicinity is sensitive enough to justify it.

As I said, except for Area 51, the other areas are quite dangerous to enter because of activity conducted there. Area 51 is a different story altogether as the activity there is highly classified and the "powers that be" don't want anyone snooping.

Contrary to what seems to be the prevalent opinion the USAF does not intercept aircraft on a whim. It needs to be fully justified and outside of the ADIZ it is indeed quite rare.

[GreNME]

Reheat: thanks for the reply. As I mentioned I'm not speaking from military experience, so it's nice to have the information I had cleared up. Just a couple quick questions (I'd have more, but they'd begin to stray off-topic, I think).

No, the number of intercepts for those restricted areas of which you speak is NOT high. The only area that is really sensitive and for which action might be taken is Area 51. The others are at times dangerous to enter because of the activity being conducted, but an errant aircraft would not likely be intercepted.

I know you also mention that Groom Lake is the only facility for which there is a strict policy against snooping, but I'm not so sure I believe that. I know of at least two people who worked at civilian capacities at two facilities, both of which were fairly tame in terms of what they actually worked on but have had extremely tight security. While I don't see the government calling F-15s in to drive off errant craft-- especially for the base in NJ-- I'm fairly sure that some form of intercept could be precipitated if a craft were to disregard numerous warnings. However, I agree that a facility like Groom Lake, with its remote location and hard-to-get-to features makes the feasibility of an actual military aircraft intercept more likely.

I seriously doubt the ABQ ANG has ever intercepted anyone. That is not their job (they are an Air to Ground Unit) and no area in the vicinity is sensitive enough to justify it.

Well, the closest facility is White Sands, which is a missile/rocket testing facility. With the exception of it (White Sands) being so close to the national border I'd agree about it not being quite sensitive enough to warrant USAF fighters. Of course, there are already plenty of federal, state, and local aircraft in that area (mostly helicopters, but some planes), so as I said a jet coming from ABQ would have to be a bit of a stretch.

That said, ABQ isn't just home to the ANG. Kirtland AFB is one of the main F-16 bases in the region, and is used for training of both special operations force (air) fighters and a few other functions. That's one of the reasons I love visiting Albuquerque: it's almost a guarantee that when I go there I can spend a day watching some kick-butt fighters take off, do a few passes (and possibly a maneuver or two), and come in for a landing. I'm sure I saw at least a few F-16s, and I think I saw one F-15 take off and land from there (this was before they were grounded at the end of last year).

None of that means that a single fighter at Kirtland has ever been deployed for an intercept, of course. I just think that what you explained was downplaying the operation there and having had a few relatives in the USAF I'm probably just being a tad defensive. :)

[CptColumbo]

For an example outside the US look at Helios flight 522. The plane suffered a slow decompression that rendered almost the entire crew and passengers unconscious. The HAF was alerted by Athens ATC at 1024, the F-16 fighters took off at 1105 and spotted the aircraft at 1120. The plane was circling the island of Kea and had its transponder on.

[gumboot]

For an example outside the US look at Helios flight 522. The plane suffered a slow decompression that rendered almost the entire crew and passengers unconscious. The HAF was alerted by Athens ATC at 1024, the F-16 fighters took off at 1105 and spotted the aircraft at 1120. The plane was circling the island of Kea and had its transponder on.


To be fair the HAF were told at 1047 that the problem had been solved, and a scramble order was not issued until 1055.

Of course this occurred after 9/11.

[CptColumbo]

To be fair the HAF were told at 1047 that the problem had been solved, and a scramble order was not issued until 1055.

Of course this occurred after 9/11.The point is, even in the post 9/11 world and with a relatively small search area, intercepts are still not instantaneous.

[Reheat]

Reheat: thanks for the reply. As I mentioned I'm not speaking from military experience, so it's nice to have the information I had cleared up. Just a couple quick questions (I'd have more, but they'd begin to stray off-topic, I think).

I don't see your direct questions, but I'll try to address your concerns and implications.

Yes, there are sensitive areas in the US, however, those sensitive areas are for the most part pretty small with a couple of exceptions. Area 51 is surrounded by the large Red Flag Training area. It is absolutely huge, occupying quite a large land area. Not always, but periodically there are large exercises involving dozens of aircraft at a time. Some of the area allows supersonic flight at low altitude. If a civilian aircraft or even a military aircraft not involved in the exercise strayed into that area, the USAF would know it immediately and would 1) warn the exercise aircraft, and 2) stop the exercise. At the same time, they would try to raise the errant aircraft on guard frequencies and they might divert one of the nearby fighters to intercept and steer the aircraft away from the area. They would most assuredly track the offending aircraft via their own and FAA radars, flight plans, etc and contact the offending crew after landing via the FAA or military in the case of a military aircraft. To my knowledge there are NO ACTIVE ALERT FIGHTERS to perform any of these functions. Now, Area 51 itself is quite small and by the time coordination could occur for an intercept of the offending aircraft it would probably be clear of the airspace. That does not mean that follow up action would not occur, but an active intercept is unlikely for just Area 51 say if someone approached from the South (not over the Red Flag area) and was a surprise. My primary point is that an intercept is generally unlikely simply because the area is small and time would not permit it except in the case I've mentioned of the larger Red Flag area.

White Sands is very large and involves more than missile testing. It is a dangerous area to be in without prior approval, but it is not a highly sensitive area (Intelligence wise) comparable to Area 51. There are 3 AF Bases nearby. Holloman AFB base in Alamogordo, Kirkland AFB in ABQ, and Cannon AFB in Clovis. Holloman has in the past 25 years had F-4's, AT-38's and more recently F-117's which are not going to intercept anything. They now are equipped with F-22's, but that is recent. Cannon has had F-100's, F-111's, F-16's and are now a Special Operations Wings with no fighters. ABQ has had F-100's, A-7's, and more recently F-16's, all with an air to ground mission and ALL ANG. There have never been nor are there now any active duty fighters assigned to Kirkland. It sounds as if you are describing Cannon, not Kirkland.

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/units/

Most of the other Military areas are Military Operating Areas (MOA's) and although not strictly restricted, they are very dangerous for non participating aircraft. One such huge area in the US is at Eglin AFB near Ft. Walton Beach, FL. It is a training and testing area and since there are numerous fighters in the area, it would along with the Red Flag area be the most likely area for diverting an airborne aircraft to intercept and steer an errant aircraft clear of the area. But, I can assure you that might occur once in 20 or 30 years.

Most of the other restricted areas in the US are quite small and for that reason alone would not likely allow time for an intercept. The MOA's are not really restricted areas, so intercepts are unlikely there, as well.

In addition to the one intercept mentioned by gumboot in Area 51, I know of one other incident that did not involve an active daylight intercept, nor did it involve the USAF, but I suppose you could call it quasi intercept. That was a series of incidents in the White Sands area where there was a suspected "drug smuggling" operation. Eventually, the DEA sent aircraft to observe and track the aircraft from a distance, so there was no real intercept. Those type of "intercepts" occur on a more frequent basis, but do not involve the USAF. I believe AWAC's aircraft perform missions for the DEA, but those missions do not involve USAF fighters.

There are other Military Operating Areas (MOA's) which are hazardous to non-participating aircraft and occasionally an aircraft will stray into those areas. All aircraft in the area are alerted until the offending aircraft is well clear of the airspace.

One other point to make before closing. Since the very early 1970's all military aircraft operating in controlled airspace are in communication with either the FAA or the USAF, frequently both, when operating anywhere. The only exception that I can recall at the moment would be Low Level routes where communication is not possible, but that is below controlled airspace. Those areas are depicted on aeronautical charts.

The main thing to understand from this discussion is that intercepts in the Continental US are very, very rare as has been pointed out numerous times. That in no way is meant to imply that intercepts could not be performed in an Emergency or for National Defense purposes by any aircraft capable of doing so. That is primarily NORAD's job and they maintain the alert aircraft to do that on a daily basis. Further discussions on the rapidity of "combat ready" aircraft being able to perform missions in support of National Defense have been previously discussed. Anything further on that issue would need a different thread in another Forum, perhaps not Conspiracy Theories.

[GreNME]

To my knowledge there are NO ACTIVE ALERT FIGHTERS to perform any of these functions.

Ahh, now I see where we're not quite talking about the same thing. No, I didn't mean to imply that there were active fighters waiting anywhere, and I apologize for giving that impression. I've read accounts of fighters who were training or out on exercises who were asked to intercept and identify errant craft before, but I don't think any of those accounts I've heard involved arming any weapons or scrambling active fighters.

Again, my apologies for giving the wrong impression of the layout of our air forces. I definitely think it was my mistake in poor wording that gave the impression I thought otherwise.

[Reheat]

I've read accounts of fighters who were training or out on exercises who were asked to intercept and identify errant craft before, but I don't think any of those accounts I've heard involved arming any weapons or scrambling active fighters.

Yes, that does happen occasionally. I've had that requested several times over a career of flying, but that's usually not an intercept. That even happens with training aircraft on occasion, too. In fact, I'd guess it probably happens more frequently with training aircraft probably because ATC knows the aircraft is carrying no ordnance and is just in a MOA doing maneuvers, not going point to point somewhere.

Although it's never happened to me, I've heard of aircraft that were asked to checkout external damage or malfunctions such as landing gear problems or flap/slat problems. The FAA does not hesitate to use military aircraft (either trainers or fighters) because they know everyone can fly formation.

You see, fighters whether they are air to ground or air to air are usually carrying ordnance of some type. While it may be training type ordnance sometimes it's not. In both roles pilots are required recurrent training in the delivery of actual live ordnance. For air to ground tasked units it's usually in the Red Flag area north of Las Vegas. For air to air units it's usually against a "Dart" over the ocean on one of the ranges there.

[GreNME]

Yes, that does happen occasionally. I've had that requested several times over a career of flying, but that's usually not an intercept. That even happens with training aircraft on occasion, too. In fact, I'd guess it probably happens more frequently with training aircraft probably because ATC knows the aircraft is carrying no ordnance and is just in a MOA doing maneuvers, not going point to point somewhere.

Interesting. Perhaps I'm not aware of what constitutes an intercept. Does it need to be a direct fighter action specifically intent on catching the errant craft from point of take off to count as an intercept?

Although it's never happened to me, I've heard of aircraft that were asked to checkout external damage or malfunctions such as landing gear problems or flap/slat problems. The FAA does not hesitate to use military aircraft (either trainers or fighters) because they know everyone can fly formation.

Yes, that jibes with what I know and why I brought it up. Again, my apologies for the wrong impression before.

[Reheat]

Interesting. Perhaps I'm not aware of what constitutes an intercept. Does it need to be a direct fighter action specifically intent on catching the errant craft from point of take off to count as an intercept?

No, I don't think that in general it's a precise term. In NORAD it's quite precise, standardized and formal with the ground based radar playing a big role until the interceptor's radar is locked on. Otherwise, outside of NORAD it's just joining with the target aircraft in some kind of formation. In other words, getting a cut off angle or an overtake speed and eventually matching the target aircraft's speed. There are several ways to do it. Pilots are taught to do it even in basic Pilot Training and it's get's more complicated and faster with advanced training. Fighter's intercept each other routinely usually several times during a typical mission. If they don't do a wing take-off, they will rejoin at altitude with the wingman intercepting the leader. Any time they separate, for range work, for example, they will rejoin afterward. These are all examples of intercepts. There is an intercept when doing air to air refueling with the fighter intercepting the tanker to begin refueling. These are all examples of intercepts and they are quite routine. What is not routine is doing this with a non military aircraft as the target.

In training aircraft they are done with eyeball judgment as they have no radar except perhaps with vectors from ATC. In fighters, radar can be used and it's very helpful. In the NORAD situation they are intercepting an unknown aircraft for which they wouldn't know the speed without the use of ground based radar until the aircraft radar can lock on to the target. Speed in a straight ahead intercept is difficult to judge accurately. They can easily result in an overshoot. If the target aircraft is turning, it's much easier.

Yes, that jibes with what I know and why I brought it up. Again, my apologies for the wrong impression before.

Not a problem at all. Normal folks have no reason to know or understand what it's all about. Glad to explain it in more detail.

[gumboot]

GreNME, you might be thinking of scramble - a term that denotes an aircraft being deployed urgently, at short notice, from an airfield - requiring the aircraft is on the ground at the time of first deployment.

Many intercepts begin with scrambles, and generally scrambles would lead to intercepts, but not all intercepts begin as scrambles.

[GreNME]

Thanks for the info, Reheat and gumboot. That helps to clear up the inconsistencies in my previous idea. I'll make sure to have a clear distinction in the future for what counts as an actual (military) intercept as opposed to other cases that may involve military craft but not be a matter of (national) security. As a matter of fact, I think it's a very good point to bring up when the herring of military intercepts is brought up in a conspiracy theory-- clearing up a misconception can go a long way in keeping woo from taking hold.

[Reheat]

GreNME, you might be thinking of scramble - a term that denotes an aircraft being deployed urgently, at short notice, from an airfield - requiring the aircraft is on the ground at the time of first deployment.

A very good point, gumboot. As has been pointed out numerous times designated ANG Units are the ONLY Units who maintain aircraft capable of scrambles since the mid-90's. Even the required response times have been reduced over the years because of the peace dividend following the end of the Cold War. The response time requirement for Air Defense has been as quick as 5 minutes. That requires the crew to remain in the cockpit. It was initially reduced to 10 minutes and then to 15 minutes as it was on 9/11.

During the Cold War there were many more aircraft on alert for scrambles, not only for Air Defense purposes, but for others contingencies, as well. I won't discuss nuclear stuff, but an example of other alert aircraft was for assistance in protecting North Atlantic Shipping Lanes. In England, we kept two aircraft loaded only with 20MM cannon on alert status for just such contingencies. The response times were ~ 1 hour as the crews were at home and would respond from there. However, the aircraft were ready on a moments notice.

The absolute best example of a non-alert non-scramble response to an aircraft with problems was Payne Stewart's Lear. NORAD was never involved. The first aircraft to intercept it was on a routine training mission out of Eglin or Tyndall AFB. Later (as there was time to respond) the escort was assumed by other units out of the mid-West that were not on alert. I don't know of any other example in over 25 years.

Referring back to gumboot's discussion of non Air Defense responses to include hijacks, it's my opinion that the USAF would prefer other aircraft perform that role as opposed to using NORAD aircraft. However, I'm also sure they don't want the requirement to maintain aircraft on alert to do that. I believe that's why the procedures were built to be rather bureaucratic and cumbersome. I'm certain that's changed since 9/11, but still the USAF just does not desire to be involved in rapid response requirements that DO NOT involve National Defense. It's expensive, increases manpower requirements, and is difficult to justify in most cases. It's a concern for people as well as justification for "your tax dollars well spent". Of course, Posse Comitatus plays a role as well. Commanders at all levels are not enthusiastic about getting involved in a no win situation involving law enforcement.

All USAF Units are required to maintain a specific minimum level of "combat ready" aircraft. This does not mean those aircraft can respond on a moments notice, but they can respond in small numbers very quickly measured in a few hours. Entire Wings, however, can be readied for combat within ~ 24 hours. It's all a matter of manpower and $$ and the USAF desires to keep those numbers as low as possible because they all pay taxes too!

[jaydeehess]

http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php


1. Even before it became clear that the September 11 flights had been hijacked, or that the intent was to use these aircraft in kamikaze attacks, their diversions from flight plan should have activated routine responses for dealing with errant planes. Civilian and military regulations and longstanding working procedures for commercial passenger planes and other aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules (”IFR”) call upon air traffic controllers under the Federal Aviation Administration (”FAA”) to alert NORAD upon determining that a flight has veered significantly from the route assigned to it by controllers; has ceased responding to ground control; or is an “unknown.” NORAD’s role in that case is to issue “scramble orders” for interception of the errant flight by jet fighters from U.S. Air Force Bases (”AFBs”). Interception of an errant flight allows for visual reconnaissance of the situation and a graduated menu of possible further actions (these might include attempts at radio contact, looking into the cockpit of the errant aircraft, visual signals such as tipping wings, attempts to force a landing, etc.).


No mention of a time frame for that notification and indeed ATC did notify NORAD on 9/11. You have no point to make in regards to this passage then.

http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm

Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert
fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled)
1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these
incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total
activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually
inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.
Appendix I contains additional information on the scramble activity
at each air defense unit and alert site and on the continental air
defense and air sovereignty missions.

This has been addressed many many times on this board. I suggest you use the search function. However it may suffice to note that a very tiny fraction, likely only the Payne Stewart flight, was an intercept occuring over the continental USA of a flight that was off course and not communicating. The vast majority are intercepts of aircraft inbound towards the USA and are indeed either intercepted over water or over Canada. Perhaps you can narrow it down by searching for the number of commercial flights that NORAD has intercepted, say all aircraft larger than a DC-3.

[Reheat]

I'm sure you also noticed that there is no source for paragraph # 1.

[jaydeehess]

I'm sure you also noticed that there is no source for paragraph # 1.

Sadly I had not noticed that the quote was from a TM opinion piece. So we do not have a quote from any authority that in the event that, " a flight has veered significantly from the route assigned to it by controllers; has ceased responding to ground control; or is an “unknown.” ", it is SOP and indeed mandatory for ATC to notify NORAD of this craft's errant behaviour.

I feel shame given that I had thought it odd that such would be part of the IFR's which I understood to be the rules that govern aircraft flying above or in the clouds rather than rules governing ATC handling of aircraft.

I did however, notice that you responded to my post first.

H.I. may step up again though.

[Reheat]

Sadly I had not noticed that the quote was from a TM opinion piece. So we do not have a quote from any authority that in the event that, " a flight has veered significantly from the route assigned to it by controllers; has ceased responding to ground control; or is an “unknown.” ", it is SOP and indeed mandatory for ATC to notify NORAD of this craft's errant behaviour.

Apparently, this comes from DRG, Bob Bowman, and Robin Hordon. I'm not sure who first started it, but it is silly and I'll offer a few comments to those who don't realize how silly it is.

IFR procedures are very specific with regard to loss of communications. There are written procedures for the aircraft to follow and those would also be known by the controller. Most aircraft have more than one radio anyway, so it's rare to lose total communications. Why NORAD would be interested in this rare occurrence is anyone's guess. Short answer is, they wouldn't be interested.

If an aircraft loses it's transponder, very rare again, the controller would call and ask him to recycle it or perhaps change the code. Some aircraft have two transponders anyway, so it would be even rarer to lose both. If it's inoperative the controller has every right to ask the aircraft to exit the Positive Control Area, but can then provide service via primary radar only. Most busy terminals in the US require a transponder and the controller could deny a clearance for an aircraft who had lost his into those areas where it's required. In essence, it's not a big deal to the Air Traffic Control System as they could simply require the aircraft to land and get the transponder repaired. That would solve the system problem without notifying anyone. To believe that NORAD should/would get involved in this is ludicrous.

If an aircraft is not following it's clearance, the controller would simply contact the aircraft to find out what's going on. It's that simple. If it were an intentional act, it's probably a hostile aircraft or the pilot is impaired. If it's unintentional a simple radio call would surely fix the problem. Only in the case where the controller deemed the aircraft to be hostile, (unimaginable in the continental US except for the 9/11 situation) then he would notify NORAD and they probably would scramble. Has this ever happened anytime other than on 9/11? Except in the case of Payne Stewart's Lear or one other similar incident several years ago, I seriously doubt it.

How could an aircraft on an IFR Clearance be unknown if it departed from a US or Canadian airport? Well, since a clearance is issued beginning with taxi, someone will need to tell me how an aircraft could enter the system with an IFR Clearance and be unknown. This scenario escapes my imagination. Hundreds of aircraft still fly under VFR, so unknowns are in the system all of the time. Unless it enters prohibited or restricted airspace or performs some other gross violation of rules, no one gets excited. Aircraft under IFR are sometimes advised of these aircraft (if they are detected) and everyone continues does their thing. Again, to even contemplate that NORAD intercepts all unknown aircraft is downright silly.

Now, an aircraft entering the ADIZ WITHOUT a flight plan, outside the estimated time of entry window, with no transponder AND without communication IS going to be intercepted. In this case, and only in this case would all of these things apply and would the aircraft be intercepted by NORAD. The most important of these is communications. If the controller can positively identify the aircraft and it has a flight plan on file, it could probably violate one or more of these items and the controller would allow the aircraft to continue. Otherwise, if it is unknown or if the controller is suspicious he would immediately notify NORAD and there would be an active Air Defense scramble and an intercept.

Why these idiots insist on propagating these falsehoods in the first place and they are then repeated by the ignorant is anybody's guess. I hope this helps anyone who didn't understand to understand it better.

[gumboot]

Just a nitpick, with Active Air Defense scrambles, NORAD is monitoring the ADIZ and if they detect an aircraft that doesn't match up with the known flightplans they will contact ARTCC to basically ask "do you know who this guy is?" and if ARTCC answers "no" NORAD will scramble.

[Reheat]

Just a nitpick, with Active Air Defense scrambles, NORAD is monitoring the ADIZ and if they detect an aircraft that doesn't match up with the known flightplans they will contact ARTCC to basically ask "do you know who this guy is?" and if ARTCC answers "no" NORAD will scramble.

Yes, this is correct. It could work both ways with either detecting a problem first.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed (Letter
Report, 05/03/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-76).


With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact in 1991, the military threat upon which NORAD had based
its core structure had again changed significantly. Likewise, the
Cuban threat was declining, and other military threats did not
approach that of the Soviets during the Cold War.

NORAD recognized this drastic reduction in the military threat and
determined that sufficient warning time existed to reconstitute
forces needed to meet a re-emerging threat of the magnitude of the
former Soviet Union. Consequently, NORAD revised the justification
for its core forces, emphasizing peacetime air sovereignty.
According to a recent NORAD strategy review,

"The dramatically changed threat and . . . development of
post-Cold War defense policies suggest real possibilities for
shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to
defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining
air sovereignty . . . . The size of the core force would equate
to that required to perform the peacetime Air Sovereignty mission."

NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control
of the territorial airspace, which includes:

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

tracking hijacked aircraft;

assisting aircraft in distress;

escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

intercepting suspect aircraft including counterdrug operations and
peacetime military intercepts.

All planes in the air on 9/11 after 8:40 am with missing or changed transponder signals or lost radio contact should have been considered suspect or possible hijacking.

[gumboot]

All planes in the air on 9/11 after 8:40 am with missing or changed transponder signals or lost radio contact should have been considered suspect or possible hijacking.


There's plenty of threads about this in the 9/11 sub forum.

[Homeland Insurgency]

There's plenty of threads about this in the 9/11 sub forum.

It's up to the moderator if they want to move my response and the op I am addressing.