A Question For Us Radar Controllers

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
ciao!

This post has been edited by ivanvedder on Feb 21 2007, 08:22 AM

Hi Ivan, welcome to the forums.. good to have you!

We have two US Controllers that float around on this board every so often, that i know of...

Robin Hordon and andrewkornkven.

Robin is former Boston Center and Andy is current Minneapolis. The best thing to do is to PM them as they will get the message as soon as they sign on.

Hope this helps...

I'll also make them aware of this question.

Cheers!
Rob

thanks Rob! (for welcome & help)


This post has been edited by ivanvedder on Feb 21 2007, 08:27 AM

There is a button on a center controller's display called "ALL PRIMARY." A controller working low altitude (ground to 23,000ft) keeps this button depressed at all times. However, a controller working high altitude, above 24,000ft-- which would have included all four controllers handling the 9/11 planes-- would have that button in the OFF position normally. This is because all airplanes above 18,000-- the PCA, or "postive controlled airspace"-- are required to have and be using transponders. Thus there are usually no primary signals to display in a high altitude sector; VFR flight is illegal in the PCA.

When a high altitude controller loses a transponder, it is a very simple matter to press the ALL PRIMARY button, and thus display the + primary signal that you are referring to. To suddenly lose the transponder of an airliner in the PCA would be an unusual and disturbing event for a controller. It has only happened to me once in 15 years as a controller, and I still remember it quite well.

With the ALL PRIMARY depressed the jet's primary target would have been visible. The exception is the Indianapolis controller working AAL77, who did not see the primary target because primary radar was down in that area that day. These primary targets would not have displayed speed or altitude, but in these cases they would have "stuck out like sore thumbs" from the other primary targets because, being jets, they would have been moving across the screen so much faster than the other primary targets, which would tend to be small VFR aircraft, cropdusters, balloons, or even flocks of birds.

[I should note that with the newer equipment, the ALL PRIMARY "button" is no longer a button, like it was when I started my career; it is now just a box on your scope that can be activated by using the trackball to move the cursor over it and left click. I'm not sure what equipment was used at the various centers on 9/11, but the point is it is a simple matter to quickly display your primaries at a high altituded sector.]

"but the point is it is a simple matter to quickly display your primaries at a high altituded sector"

thanks Andrew, all is clear, the final part of your answer too..
ciao

Ivanveder,

Hello, my name is Robin Hordon and I'm the former controller from Boston Center. Andy is exactly correct with his thorough response, and years ago I was one of the controllers who trained controllers in the transition from the old "broadband radar", into the the newer computerized or "RDP" [radar data processing] radar when there were buttons as Andy indicated.

I'm very glad that Andy has pointed out the issue with AA77, and its something that always needs to be remembered, and re-looked at, as the 911TM gains ground and improves its "truth base".

I would also point out something very important. If you are using the 911 Commission report for your beginning point, PLEASE be very, very wary of what that corrupted group [read: Phillip Zelikow] has generated in its report because its so full of lies and distortions. If you are using written materials, I suggest that you get Dr. David Ray Griffin's two seminal books in publication now: "The New Pearl Harbor" to start, then his crituque of "The 9/11 Commission Report" which is named as such, and its subtitle is: "Omissions and Distrortions". In March he will be putting out another rebuttal of current "alleged" debunkers of our good work. The name of that book is: "Debunking 9/11 Debunkers: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory". I suggest that you purchase that book also...it should help out a lot.

And just as an example, the 911 Commission's information presented about secondary and primary radar in the paragraph that you highlighted is one of the FEW outlays of information that is about 100% correct. How about that!

There are several not-yet-credible sources about 911Truth hanging around, but more and more, the credible ones are becoming more apparent, and the less credible ones are withering away due to lack of credibility, or facts. So, its best to double-triple-quadruple check your information.

And of course, "Keep the Search for AA77 Alive"...its one of the government's achilles heels just behind WTC7 and a few other solid "givens" that show the complicity by the US government.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Hi Robin, I've read your posts all around the forum, thanks for your answer too.
No, I'm not at the beginning point and as a radar controller (10 years in an ACC) I 100% agree with Andrew (and yours) professional osservations.
Here in Italy all the people, who want to defend the (unbelievable) delays the Boston controllers had to notify Neads/Norad, usually say that during those moments was very difficult to follow primary returns of the aircraft cause the controllers had the radar set for "trasponders only" (and go back to the "all primary" was a long procedure).
I've never had any doubt this was not the real situation, now I'll show your answer (and the Andrew's one) to that people.
for truth from Italy
ciao

This post has been edited by ivanvedder on Feb 22 2007, 04:23 AM

Some good conversation here, from the perspective of a non-controller.

I have heard talk of the Pentagon's use of "injects" on the radar screens. It seems to me that if they can do such things as inject false targets into the system, then the possible scenarios for 11 September are almost infinite.

Amazed...

The NORAD "injects" never make it to any FAA controllers radar...they are only seen on NORAD radars because THEY ARE NOT REAL! It would be very irresponsible to load in fake stuff on a live controllers' scope and then have that controller do the bob and weave with fake aircraft. The exercises have some real targets, the responding aircraft, but all the other inputs are all computer generated. Its a play world during the exercises...and when ATC calls them off for emergencies, they are OVER, and the "real world rules". These "inputs" and all the NORAD exercises are just a smoke screen for the public to say "OOOOOH", now I understand...when they absolutely do not understand. Just more psy-ops and public PR spewed out by the military and Bush Regime to cover their guilty tracks.

Another point that probably needs to be made is that on the ABC/Walters news report with Danielle OBrien, there were THREE different radar displays shown, and only ONE, near OBrien's talking was a real ATC scope. One other was a simulation that was noted as such, and the other was either from the FAA Command Center, or to me, the old "Central Flow Control", or, most likely, a NORAD display because of the coloration differences between military traffic and civilian traffic. The FAA Command Center uses the huge radar display showing aircraft movement coast-to-coast to keep a handle on potential overlods, bunched up arrivals, or the effects of bad weather on regional ops. Andy would be able to verify that difference. But, the FAA Command Center really does not monitor military traffic...NORAD does that.

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Terrorcell asked some questions about radar systems and transponders on another post somewhere, and I will try to give some answers.


Question #1
If 93 is flying under 89 and turns off its transponder, can they appear as only one target.

Yes, absolutely.

The only way that either primary or secondary radar would be able to distiguish them is if they were several thousand feet apart. The long range radar [LRR] used by enroute centers needs more distance in between the aircraft than the shorter range tracon radars. If there were two transponder replies right on top of each other, the RDP [Radar Data Processing] computers may not show anything, or it might show the stronger signal for a sweep or two. If the aircraft NOT squawking, or utilizing its transponder, moves several thousand feet away, and the center controller selects his primary radar to be activated, then there would be two targets, one the transponder, and one the primary target. So, if there were "piggy-back" airplanes, they would have to remain very close to each other in order NOT to be able to be seen. Additionally, the enroute radar controller would have had to select "primary" targets to be displayed which is unusual.

However, Zalewski, and all the other Boston ARTCC controllers following AA11 AFTER it lost its transponder, DID switch the primary radar filter to "on" as well as they amended the flight plan so that the computer TRACKING program would seek only aircraft WITHOUT a transponder. [The "tracking program" is NOT the RDP "target" program...they are separate functions and separate programs.] This change enhanced the TRACKING ability, and would have shown another aircraft in either a primary manner, or a secondary [transponder] manner if one were nearby. I think that no extra targets were noted.

2. Can a controller tell the different sizes of aircraft based upon the size of the returned primary radar signal?

NO and YES...again, citing enroute long range radar capabilities...

NO...When targets are displayed on an enroute controller's radar scope, in normal "narrowband ops"..ie eveything is computerized, the RDP, Radar Data Processing computer collects all the target responses that each one gets during each sweep and converts them into electronic "blips". Then, if there are multiple radar sources for the same airspace/aircraft, the computer makes a judgement as to which return is the best target and makes that target available should the controller select such types of targets. The digitized/electronic TARGETS are displayed as... + ...or... / ...or... \ ... on the scope and they are just as you see them here.
The + is a primary target....
The / is a transponder target NOT being tracked by the computer program...
The \ is a transponder target that IS being tracked by the computer program...


[Note: Some of this information may be outdated due to new "PCs" used at enroute sectors, so I may have the two slashes backwards, and the below stated TRACKING PROGRAMS may have changed a bit since those times. AndyK would know this.]

Therefore, for Long Range Radar LRR like that used at all the ARTCCs, there is no way to tell any AIRCRAFT size difference in RDP primary targets, and all transponder-secondary targets are displayed as identical symbols also.

But what IS a factor regarding an aircraft's "primary target size" is that when a TRACKING program for a specific primary target pre-locates its "search box" and within that box it is seeking a primary target, IF that primary target is LARGE, the TRACKING PROGRAM is quick to jump on it, and if it were too small, The TRACKING PROGRAM might look for another primary target in that search area. One of the reasons that AA11 was able to be so easily tracked by the computer is because it was a B767 with a WIDE BODY and a HUGE VERTICAL STABILIZER...it was basically a blimp and could be seen VERY easly.

So, size counts for "tracking" even in the digitized radar world.

YES...but this may be older information...
In earlier days when broadband radar was either used, or was a back-up to the RDP radar systems, the RAW radar would sweep across the scope like that as seen in the Dulles approach control displays shown during Daniel OBrien's piece on ABC. Its the type of a sweep where the targets seem to illuminate in bright green FLASHES as the radar hits the target. The RAW radar used to show some elements of larger vs smaller targets. So, if there were several aircraft flying near each other, like following each other with 500 feet between them, they would make a LONG target, that would be noticed, BUT, not by much. Now, if there were a small or slender primary "fuselage" then that would often be very hard to see. So, the net result back then was that we could sorta tell the sizes of aircraft...kinda.

Giving example of flight of the "alleged" flight AA77 on 9/11, when A "high speed primary target" was seen emerging from the Appalachians 50 or so miles west of Dulles, there is no way to tell if it was a B757, or a smaller military fighter-bomber-drone type of aircraft.

3. Can transponders squawk a code assigned another aircraft?

YES.

Civilian transponders are able to select a code that includes four numbers from zero to nine. Consequently, if you had ten aircraft on your frequency, you could tell them all to squawk the same code, or ten individual ones. A transponder code is assigned to a flight plan about an hour before scheduled departure and the "localized" computer system would know not to assign the same code to another aircraft in that local computer system because the TRACKING system would see two identical codes and it might jump the TRACK from one to the other.

Code changes are made enroute sometimes because, for example, the LAX local computer system might assign a four digit code to an eastbound flight from LAX to NYC, and conversely, the NYC local computer might assign the exact same code to a flight headed towards LAX at the same time. As the two aircraft approached each other near, lets say, the Chicago Center, ONE of the flights would be assigned a different code by the Chigago Center local computer to avoid two aircraft having the same code in the same geographical area. Modern ARTCC sector computers have been "PC'd", so actually, there may be more code changes now than what I remember in the past.


I hope that this helps answer your questions. There should be more questions about radar, so feel free to fire away.


Something interesting to look forward to down the AA77 road...

One of the main steps ahead for the 9/11TM in learning and understanding of radar and the variety of radar systems and displays that are in use throughout aviation, is that the military has its own, DIFFERENT transponder identification systems and its fondly known as: IFF...Identification-Friend-or Foe. Consequently, military aircraft have TWO transponder outputs available to them, one civilian FAA radar type, and one the military IFF type. If my knowledge serves me well, military IFF transponder outputs are NOT SEEN by FAA radar systems. One of the many purposes that the IFF system serves is to "disarm" air-to-air" and "ground-to-air" missle attack, or defensive systems respectively from US military aircraft and defensive installations. Commercial jetliners are not normally outfitted with military IFF transponders so they cannot "disarm" such defensive missle systems. A PRIMARY radar target also cannot disarm such a missle defense system.

All of this comes into play regarding the strike on the pentagon as missle defense systems for the White House, and possibly the pentagon, were seemingly shut down by "something", or "somebody" on 9/11. I am aware of the "Minetta-Cheney" story about "orders still standing"...but there may be different conclusions about that drawn. There are several questions that are begged from the "alleged" AA77 saga regarding radar identification near the pentagon and the FAB TURN executed by the air vehicle.

Questions...

1. Which radar faciity was briefing the young man who kept asking Cheney about the orders? No reports exist that it was from Dulles Tracon.

2. Some reports show that the Secret Service informed the Reagan-National tower about the inbound air vehicle, or vice-verse. If it was the Secret Service that told Reagan-National tower, who did tell them about the air vehicle?

3. Was it a military radar facility that tracked the aircraft that told the SS?

4. If so, how long had it been tracking the air vehicle? More than 50 miles away?

5. Was THIS the source of the radar data that "filled in the dotted lines" that first represented the eastbound leg of the "alleged" flight AA77?

6. An air vehicle 60 miles out doing 300K [as the FDR indicates], or five miles per minute was 12 minutes away, and when adding a 3-4 minute turn, it was 15-16 minutes away when Cheney was first notified, was that long enough to scramble fighters?

7. The air vehicle was a primary target to Dulles Tracon and therefore had NO ALTITUDE READOUT, how, and by whom was it established that the "air vehicle" that made that FAB TURN near the pentagon started at an altitude of 7000 feet and then descended? If not by FAA radar, by whose radar?

If my memory serves me, the 7000 foot altitude was known BEFORE the ensuing radar data surfaced several days after 9/11.


Just some Qs...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Hi Robin some more questions about Us procedures:

I read the "CJCSI 3610.01A1 June 2001"

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

and at point "4" policy there is:

"Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States."

The questions are:
Who gives informations about position of the intercepted aircraft to the scramble fighters?
(i'm obviously interested in a case of a primary target interception)

Are this fighters vectored by a controller (Faa or Norad) to intercept an unknow target or they are able to perform a "self-interception"?

thank you

I have been trying to get radar records of Washington DC airspace
for the time period of 9:30 am to 10:00 am on 9/11.
So far the FAA has not provided the radar images but has sent a letter saying their
are "no record" of any aircraft in this airspace at this time, which is odd because we know that the C-130 was there.
If the four engine "white plane" seen and photographed circling the White House
at 9:40 am were in fact a military plane like the E-4B is it possible it would operating on the IFF transponder, providing "no record" to the FAA of it's identity?
If so is there any possible way that a 747 could be invisible to radar, or could project it's radar image to another location,
or would the FAA radar simply show a primary target with no information attached?
Wouldn't a primary target be considered a "record" of an aircraft even if it's identity were not known?
I am still trying to get the radar images.

Ivanvedder,

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?

Background...
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...

Robin Hordon

How about that...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Pinnacle...

Lets try to get through your excellent questions...

Could the four engine aircraft have been operating via IFF and thus NOT be visible to FAA radar except that it would then be seen as a primary target by FAA radar.

Yes!

But, such a high speed primary target may not have been easily noted by smaller low altitude sectors in the FAA facilities and the high altitude sectors would not usually have their "primary target" button pushed and thus, they would not see it either. Radar data shown in succeeding days may disclose all the targets that all the radars actually "saw" or "considered" during that time period. And controllers may not have seen them on that day because of their "selected target" buttons pushed or not pushed. But, IF a controller were in a searching mode, they could adjust their scopes to create a competent search. I do not know what they chose to do...and it would be nice to know.

The radar track readout that Ashoki had showing the "alleged" tracks along the ground for the "alleged" AA77 were thought to be showing the C-130 departing from Andrews BUT the primary radar target that I "sorta saw" actually was a very high speed target in a long turn just north of the pentagon and WH. So, I actually thought I had that WHITE four engined aircraft "picked out". Needless to say, I can no longer find that entire radar display from Ashoki. Hmmmm???? Sound familiar?

I saw ABSOLUTELY NO PRIMARY TARGET that represented the C-130 departing from Andrews...and C-130's are very, very visible to primary radar.

It's also possible that such an aircraft could be painted/coated with "stealth" materials and that would eliminate some primary radar returns...but that's just conjucture...although, if I were to slip a "secret" aircraft through that airspace on that day, you KNOW I would paint it invisible. The military is well known for taking advantage of all situatons to test their new fangled stuff...so, one never knows.

The last I was aware, there were some defensive ECM...Electronic Counter Measure systems for military aircraft that would confuse any inbound missles by somehow projecting their "target" to another location. But, I do not think that such capacilty exists regarding normal FAA radar systems. Again, that is conjuecture on my part. I do know this, the military is very, very advanced in its radar research and developments.

And YES, any radar return, either primary or secondary would be considered a "record" of an aircraft seen by the associated radar system IF such records were in fact real. As far as making positive radar identification of said targets, that would have to have very specific steps taken by the pilot at the behest of the controller...either with a transponder or primary target.

Its not all that hard to create any and all the information that I have seen so far. In the 1970s there were fake target generator technologies used to train air traffic controllers, and that was 30 ago! So really, almost anything is "create-able, or "delete-able".

Hope this helps...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Hi Robin,

here they are







Ashoka