It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Oops...U2 fries LAX air traffic control computers

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

The stories, what I read of them, were really interesting. I never read the book after I heard the theory about Roswell.




posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

One of my favorites with one of my favorite Brits.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Am puzzled about this "official story" (which may or may not be the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth), for several reasons:

1. The U-2 has been around since the 1950s; it is not "new technology", or so we are told -- although I would suspect that some aspects of its basic technological design have been continually upgraded and added to, over the years. But doesn't it strike anyone as being "strange" or "incongruent" that, now -- and after all these years -- "suddenly" the LAX-region air-traffic computers should "not know" how to properly handle a radar-return from a U-2?

2. Even so, if indeed this LAX-region-computer problem was triggered by an overflying U-2, is it possible that these malfunctions may have been triggered not directly by the U-2 itself but by some sort of EMP-generating-equipment, or other such special equipment, in use onboard the plane?

3. If the above speculation turns out to be more than just speculation, is it possible that the triggering of this LAX-air-traffic computer-problem was accidental -- or could it be that the generating of that glitch was intentional, perhaps some sort of a "dry run" test?

4. But all these thoughts are based on an acceptance of the story given in these news-reports about the U-2 "confusing" the system. I would suppose that this really was a U-2 and that confirmational information will strongly back that up.

However, is it possible -- regardless of whether or not a U-2 was involved -- that something far more serious was the cause of the alleged "glitch" and of the air-traffic system being shut-down for that period of time, and that (a) what we are told was an air-traffic computer-glitch and (b) what we are told was the U-2 involvement in the problem, are simply convenient "cover-stories"?

5. If the answer to the above questions turns out to be "yes", then what might be the "hidden" stories involved?

(a) Could it be that the LAX -- and maybe the rest of the nation's -- standard air-traffic-control systems are in drastic need of upgrading to deal with the increasing complexities of air-travel (and, soon, aerospace-travel)?

(b) Is it also possible that the LAX -- and the nation's -- standard air-traffic-control systems are in dire need not only of upgrading but also of "hardening" against EMP-or-related attacks, such as may have been involved in this current reported LAX-air-traffic-region incident?

(c) Could it be that this "glitch" -- if it truly was a "glitch" or if it truly actually happened -- was actually an intentionally-planned "test" of some sort?

(d) As to what else may possibly have been the cause of this alleged glitch, I leave that to others in this forum to speculate further.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'd ask Iranian air defence radar operators if I were you for the current up to date 'computer bummfukkery' the USA is capable of.

Syrians too whilst you are at it. Didn't even see a manned aircraft multi ship flight until after it was on its way home with zero casualties.


My thoughts in a nutshell - Palmdale, 60K, unknown (not a U-2) has its defensive suite left on by mistake after flying over a long lonely test range, gets pinged by air traffic on its way home, the automatic response is 'fry that bastard' and proceeds to do so.





edit on 4-5-2014 by Astr0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Protonius

It does seams plausible that something not exactly as reported happened over LAX. If it was exactly as reported, did LAX recently change or update the software their ATC use, or why would this have just now happened? I'm sure it wasn't the first time an aircraft flew over LAX at higher than average altitudes. Someone's software dev. team is burning the midnight oil for this one.
If it was an EMP it would have to be very narrow in nature (a beam rather than a wide spread pulse) as not to effect the other jets flying at lower altitude around LAX. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist so I can't really fathom it being an intentional test by the DoD, as a shut down of a major hubs ATC system can potentially put thousands of travelers lives in danger from mid-air collisions.
As Astr0 postulated, possibly an accidental disruption by an automated system on a automated airframe.


edit on 4-5-2014 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Protonius

(a) Could it be that the LAX -- and maybe the rest of the nation's -- standard air-traffic-control systems are in drastic need of upgrading to deal with the increasing complexities of air-travel (and, soon, aerospace-travel)?

(b) Is it also possible that the LAX -- and the nation's -- standard air-traffic-control systems are in dire need not only of upgrading but also of "hardening" against EMP-or-related attacks, such as may have been involved in this current reported LAX-air-traffic-region incident?


The current nationwide air traffic control system is falling apart around our ears, and getting worse. They have had plans to upgrade it for over 20 years, but the FAA doesn't have an actual budget, and hasn't had for something like 15 years. They can't do anything until they have a budget.

According to transponder data, an ER-2 was overflying the region at the time of the outage.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Why would a U-2 be flying through LAX airspace in 2014?

A U-2?!?

Does this make sense to anyone?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Because they have to fly through LAX airspace to get to and from where they're going, since they fly out of Beale AFB??
edit on 5/4/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
ER-2, out over the Pacific, round about then home. The outage was specific, as are the ones over Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, along the NK border.

I would say that the podded equipment was being tested for self defence for the high altitude manned fleet much like the BACN was tested on manned for UAVs before Firebird, Reaper and 'others' took it aloft over the sand box in real life usage.


Any one here old enough to recall the Compass aircraft that flew into the UK with all its jammers on? I do. Accidents happen.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

NASA has been involved in quite a few recent military systems. They've been using their WB-57s for BACN relays on operational missions over Afghanistan for the last several years.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Spy plane fries LAX instruments? .... well, maybe.
UFO close shave fries LAX instruments? .... That could be too.

Seriously ... not to jump on the 'pictures or it didn't happen' thing, but I'm not automatically buying into the story that a spy plane did this. It could be. But I'm not going to immediately trust the story.

ETA .. yes, I can hear the woo-hoo calls from here. I know it's a far out thought ....

edit on 5/4/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Another related article from one of our favorite sources:

theaviationist.com...


edit on 4-5-2014 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astr0
ER-2, out over the Pacific, round about then home. The outage was specific, as are the ones over Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, along the NK border.

I would say that the podded equipment was being tested for self defence for the high altitude manned fleet much like the BACN was tested on manned for UAVs before Firebird, Reaper and 'others' took it aloft over the sand box in real life usage.


Any one here old enough to recall the Compass aircraft that flew into the UK with all its jammers on? I do. Accidents happen.



I know of a story where a police officer assigned to handing out speeding tickets with a police speed radar attempted to clock the speed of a stealth fighter taking off from a British air base. His speed gun was hit by a blast of ECM.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
It looks they were spoofing a low altitude location. Normally they can spoof radar to show themselves a few miles away from their real location. Unless it's a case of the ground control system just didn't expect anything that high and rolled the altitude down. Unusual for radar to wait for returns above the altitudes they control. It's a waste of energy and computing time. Normal radars have altitude cutouts to prevent spurious responses.
just few little tidbits.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

I think that's a myth, along with the one about a car getting picked up on radar doing over 400km/h because the radar accidentally picked up a hornet.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Story made the BBC www.bbc.co.uk...

They also claim that the U2 will be retired within the next couple of years?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: solidshot

If the Air Force gets their way, the A-10, U-2, and potentially the KC-10 all start retiring in the next budget, until they're all gone.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: solidshot

If the Air Force gets their way, the A-10, U-2, and potentially the KC-10 all start retiring in the next budget, until they're all gone.


I think Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia ought to buy every last A-10.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I agree. They've sold KC-135s, so they should them too.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
"Fries"??? Really??? "Confused" perhaps is a better word. Nothing was "fried" in any sense of the term.

Oh wait.....this is ATS!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join