Posted on 12/09/2005 5:08:08 PM PST by concretebob
The rumor mill started humming Monday morning, Nov. 28, after ABC Radio aired the following report:
FBI and Homeland Security agents spent part of the weekend investigating the report of a possible missile fired at a plane leaving Los Angeles international airport. ABC's Alex Stone has the details.
... the pilots radioed air-traffic controllers saying what appeared to be a rocket had been fired at the aircraft and missed as American Airlines Flight 621 was climbing over the water. It had just taken off from LAX. The plane was enroute to Chicago ... When it landed, FBI agents spoke with the pilots. Sources say those agents now believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket that passed by and they don't think it was any threat to the aircraft.
This report did not run for long, possibly no more than once or twice. Still, thousands of people heard it, and many of those were understandably suspicious when no other major media outlet picked up the story.
Not satisfied with rumors, retired United Airline pilot, Ray Lahr, and aviation audio expert, Glen Schulze, decided to investigate. The pair have been cooperating in Lahr's ongoing Freedom Of Information Act suit in federal court against the CIA and the National Transportation Safety Board regarding the demise of TWA Flight 800. What they have found about the LAX flight is inconclusive, but intriguing, and deserves serious inquiry.
For starters, the flight was AA 612 and not AA 621 as reported. Lahr and Schulze checked its progress using the LAX airport monitor. Those interested in doing the same can enter Nov. 26, 12:49, 20-mile range, and then click on "start."
You will see every airplane aloft in the Los Angeles area on the map. In about a half minute, "AAL612" appears as a green aircraft crossing the shoreline. If you click on the aircraft, it will turn red, and the flight data will appear in a box to the right. Over the next few minutes, the aircraft turns south. At approximately 6,000 feet and off the coast of Redondo Beach, a new target will appear.
"The unidentified target's altitude does some funny things," observes Glenn Schulze, "from a constant 1,500 feet to suddenly showing 7,500 feet where it remains, which is the same altitude as AA FL 612 at this point in AA FL 612's climb-out."
According to Lahr, AA 612 seems "to split and become TWO! It remains TWO for a while, both targets moving together, then they separate, the mirror target fades, and AA 612 (thank God) is alone again, heading slightly south east."
The unidentified target appears for 12 to 13 sweeps of the FAA LAX TRACON radar rotating at a 4.7-second sweep rate. "This target can not be easily explained away as a radar ghost or artifact or swamp gas," adds Schulze, "as it exists and tracks over the ground for almost 50 seconds as it travels along with AA FL 612. Dynamite evidence!"
What makes the evidence particularly compelling is that the pilots apparently saw what the radar was reporting. Those who are interested in the pilot's commentary can go to the following site. The relevant conversation is at the very end of this segment, during the last minute. This conversation takes place several minutes after the incident and alludes to an earlier conversation.
ATC: Flare or a rocket?
AA 612: It looked more like a rocket.
ATC: American 612, how far away was it from your position?
AA 612: It was about half way between us and the coastline when we first called that last center guy.
Whatever the pilot saw prompted enough concern for LAX officials to contact the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. It also prompted a very serious report on ABC radio.
The most comprehensive reporting on the subject appeared Dec. 3 in an LAX area newspaper called The South Bay Daily Breeze. The headline says it all: "Smoke Trail Wasn't Threat to Plane, Say Investigators."
The article describes what the pilot saw as an "an unusual vapor trail," one that was "at least a mile below the airplane." FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller assured the readers that this presumed trail "absolutely posed no threat." This claim would be more reassuring had the FBI not also convinced the reporter that "whatever left the vapor trail did not appear on radar, and the pilot never reported seeing any kind of projectile."
The existing evidence would seem to refute all of those claims. The pilots saw not a vapor trail, but a "flare or a rocket." They saw it when the plane was no higher than 6,000 feet. Anything "at least a mile below them" would likely be swimming. The radar did pick something up, and the pilots considered the event sufficiently alarming to report it.
A veteran Airline Pilots Association safety investigator, Lahr was once much more likely to accept aviation authorities at their word. Having spent the last several years fighting them for information in the federal courts, he has grown increasingly skeptical.
The FBI may have its reason for quieting fears, Lahr understands, but as the distorted investigation of TWA Flight 800 has shown, a pacified population is a vulnerable one.
Yes, I read that. I was wondering what Rokke thinks the pilots saw that could look like a rocket.
Please take a look at post #104 if you haven't already.
On Sept. 15, 2005 America West Flight 17 took off from JFK Airport and also reported seeing a rocket.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003563.htm
You can view JFK's airport monitor here and look back to September 15th and follow that flight too
http://www4.passur.com/jfk.html
While I agree with your and Rokke's information about passive and active radars, I have to point out that the FBI (our government) did not help matters by suggesting that what the pilots saw at 7500 feet was a bottle rocket or a flare.
I actually think it might be GOOD public policy not to scare the flying public with reports of missiles being shot at passenger planes without extraordinary proofs. The airline industry is only now starting to recover from the impacts of 9/11. Our economy does not need a hit like this. We have to remember that terrorism is not necessarily about killing people... it is about terrorizing them into changing their behavior to their detriment. If the terrorists can spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the safety of airline flight, then they have succeeded.
Whether a missile brought down TWA-800 or a missile was fired at this aircraft, it remains a fact that shooting down an aircraft over 6000 feet with a ground to air Man portable missile is an extraordinarly difficult thing to do. If we accept that TWA-800 was shot down, it is a first outside of a warzone and it increases the degree of risk associated with passenger air travel only an infinitesimally small amount. Someone must be making a Risk-Benefit analysis and coming down on the side of keeping the public flying.
However, trying to obfuscate the report by suggesting an impossible "bottle rocket or flare" as a serious candidate for what was seen will only inflame those who know those candidates could not reach that altitude... causing them to dig deeper. Only the ignorant masses will give them acceptance: "the FBI said it, it must be true."
Do a little more research. The only data PASSUR receives from an ASR system is 1030 MHZ interrogation data (transponder data). If the target isn't transmitting an IFF code, it won't show up when it is interrogated by an ASR system and there is nothing to be sent to the PASSUR system.
"the FAA ATC tapes may not have designated the bogey as the AA flight."
Where have you seen those?
"TCAS is NOT implemented on ALL commercial aircraft. ONLY those with FAA oversight."
Again, you need to do more research. TCAS is currently required on all commercial aircraft (part 121) and all cargo aircraft with a max takeoff weight of more than 33,000. The same is true internationally.
"Also, it is entirely possible that this was another aircraft that wandered into the airspace with it's IFF turned off."
Then it would have been seen by ATC radars used to track raw returns (not transponder data) and would have been reported to AA 612.
"I can turn IFF off on my plane anytime I want."
Yeah. And do it in Class A airspace (where this event occurred) and then you really will see fireworks. I've been scrambled for similar events.
"Did the AA pilot report a TCAS warning?"
No, which is really all the proof you need that what shows up on the PASSUR display is a ghost image. If it were real, AA 612 would have been climbing and diving all over the sky to avoid a collision.
But that does not explain why two members of a highly trained flight crew reported a fast smoke track passing them, and this happened EXACTLY when and where it shows on that site.
yes...I saw 2 events
It must be one of those rockets like the ones used in "Category 7: The End of the World" where they shot them off standing four feet away. Those, according to the film, could easily reach 7500 feet... and they were only about two feet long!
Seriously, it is crap like that film that make the gullible public accept the premise that a bottle rocket or flare could reach 7500 feet.
No returns at all. No evidence other than the report from AA 612. The discussion on this thread is all about the site referenced by Jack Cashill that shows transponder data on traffic in LAX airspace.
"Anyway, what do you think the pilots saw?"
Who knows. It could have been just about anything or nothing. I've literally ducked in the cockpit to avoid "colliding" with a reflection on the windshield.
There is a problem with radar in some circumstances.
Not saying this is a false report at all. I'm working on some H-Plane csc^2 antennas that are are about 12 feet long. In a vertical and accompanying horizontal one by it's side, it is very accurate. They are transmit-recieve in X-band. In circular polarity they are as accurate as linear without crappy weather. It takes a 3000 foot range to certify them. They get boresighted using a laser before hoisting them on the positioner on the other side of a canyon from the xmit source. Nice patterns.
Good to meet someone with else with experience in this field.
One more thing - they are built of composite material with a built-in heating system to keep snow and water away.
I assume your italic text was PASSUR explaining their system. It states, These “ghost” aircraft are due to radar reflections from the high-rise buildings around the airport, and possibly from terrain and meteorological conditions farther away from YOUR AIRPORT."
This occurred several miles off coast, over open ocean, on what I suspect was a clear day over the Pacific. The signal being emitted from flight AA612 is being picked up by PASSUR cleanly as it makes it's southward turn and continued ascent out of LAX.
At around 12:51:55, a ghost signal, from AA612 is also picked up by several of the receivers collecting data for PASSUR. A 2nd flight AA612 is identified and recorded. But this flight (the ghost) has one difference from the actual flight, it is recorded at 1500ft altitude.
At 12:51:55, this object is recorded at 1500 ft. At 12:52:53, it jumps to 7200ft. At this moment the actual flight AA612 is recorded at 7000ft. At 12:52:27, PASSUR shows orignal selected flight out of LAX at 7300ft.
The flight out of LAX is 8 to 10 miles off coast and a couple miles up, what terrain feature or meteorological condition at the location of this plane is causing PASSUR to register the ghost image?
I'd wager you that you cannot find another ghost plane registered this far out over the Pacific anywhere on PASSUR that same day or even week or month.
Saying that "the transponder signal from flight AA612 is reflecting off a missile or other physical object at or around 1500ft, at 12:52:23 over the Pacific Ocean on Nov 26, 2005" is a far better explanation than a meteorological condition. Especially since there are eye-witness confirmations of the 2nd object, the PILOTS of flight AA612.
I work in the sonar business. It's much easier to track and identify objects in air than it is in salt water oceans and seas. If the pilots say they saw a missile, or rocket, that same day and time, then there is no doubt in my mind that the ghost record is a reflection of the flight AA612 PUSSAR signal emission off the missle that they saw.
Where in the world did you find that info? They reported "a fast moving smoke track"!? And it happened "EXACTLY" when and where it shows on that site!? The only thing I heard them say was that "it looked more like a rocket" and that it was "halfway between them and the coastline." They were almost 10 miles out over the water at the time. That puts what they saw about 5 miles away. Do you have some information nobody else does?
You are making assumptions here. According to this article the pilots reported the smoke trail was about a mile below them (they were at 7500ft) and the recording of the ATC transmissions proves the pilot said the smoke trail was halfway between him and the coastline. You've made the assumption that the smoke trail was near them at 7500 ft. That clearly is not an accurate assumption.
As I understand it, the active radar return does not carry any altitude information... only direction and distance. Therefore, if the transponder signal coming from "bogey" ghost suddenly shows the aircraft at 1500 when it actually is at 6000, that information had to come from the transponder... which wouldn't send inaccurate info. Can the "ghost" transponder signal garble the information to indicate the wrong altitude?
Actually, I am not making the assumptions here... the radio news report I heard contemporaneous with the event described as being at the same altitude and passing the plane. Bad reporting? Probably.
If that were the case, than transponder signals would be reflecting off of objects all over the place and it would be impossible for any type of ground based IFF receiver to work. Think about it. If a missile or small aircraft were capable of reflecting AA612's transponder signal, than the PASSUR display would be constantly covered with bogus ghost tracks as aircraft crossed over other aircraft, antennas, buildings etc. If it is possible for IFF transmissions to bounce off of objects as small and as fast moving as a supersonic missile, than the TCAS system used in every commercial aircraft today would never work (or rather would give you almost constant alerts). Having spent many years operating a very powerful and very advanced radar system, I am still surprised how often my radar displays false returns. Even hundreds of miles over the ocean. It doesn't take much of a meteorological disturbance to spoof a radar.
"Especially since there are eye-witness confirmations of the 2nd object, the PILOTS of flight AA612."
Did you read what their eyewitness was? "It looked more like a rocket". That's it. And they were describing its smoke trail.
That depends on the radar. Some provide three dimensional data. But in this case, the PASSUR system is not provided anything but transponder data.
"Therefore, if the transponder signal coming from "bogey" ghost suddenly shows the aircraft at 1500 when it actually is at 6000, that information had to come from the transponder"
No. Read this again from the PASSUR site "Aircraft tracking radar, and the software that supports it, while highly reliable, is also complex. Sometimes circumstances can interfere with the signal, causing temporary distortions."
Sorry. I made a bad assumption that you were using the same info I was. I haven't seen any reports indicating the event was at the same altitude as the plane.
Any large object will suffice, especially objects that are naturally reflective. Thus, birds and bottle rockets won't do, but other planes and missles will. I can assure you the PUSSAR software will filter out the reflections occuring off identified objects. Low altitude is where everything essentially gets filtered out by the software.
Your postulation is why radar does not work at low altitude. Above 1000 ft, where are the reflections occuring? Only off other planes. If you are identifying all the other planes, you got the problem half solved.
As always with things like this. It is always more fun to believe there is a hidden subplot to every story. Especially a subplot involving massive government cover-ups of lurking dangers. The "guvmint" can't win. They are either accused of over-hyping the terrorist threat, or hiding the terrorist threat. And any defense in either direction is a damned lie and further proof that they are covering something up. But hey, it keeps WND in the black.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.