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.

 

US military planes criss-cross Europe using bogus call sign

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Big surprise,our government trying to hie things...again.
Wonder what it is their trying to hide,and why the using of bogus signs.
Either way,im sure its not good if they have to hide it.


www.timesonline.co.uk...

(TimesOnline)-THE American military have been operating flights across Europe using a call sign assigned to a civilian airline that they have no legal right to use.
Not only is the call sign bogus — according to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) — so, it appears, are some of the aircraft details the Americans have filed with the air traffic control authorities.

In at least one case, a plane identified with the CIA practice of “extraordinary rendition” — transporting terrorist suspects — left a US air base just after the arrival of an aircraft using the bogus call sign.

The call sign Juliet Golf Oscar (JGO) followed by a flight number belongs, says the ICAO, to a now bankrupt Canadian low-cost airline called Jetsgo of Montreal.






[mod edit: cut quote(s), as the full story is readily available via the link provided.]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
What is going on with our country?? Why are they so determined to take this country down to the curb so desperately with all this controversy? These 2 years can't come fast enough. I don't think the USA has ever seen a time filled with so much corruption before. Am I mistaken?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Holy quoting, batman!!

Can't you let us at least read a little of it for ourselves? LOL.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Personally, considering the CIA is a spy agency, I expect them to do secret stuff, that the general public(or those of other countries) don't know about. It's kind of hard to be sneeky if you fly in planes marked with CIA on the side, and announce who you are or what you're up to. What I find more surprising, is that folks are surprised about these sorts of things. Do you think other governments spy agencies don't do the same things, and that it's only the CIA? Being secretive as a spy agency, isn't a conspiracy. It's just standard operating procedure.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Might as well be asking CIA intelligence officers to wear insignias that shows them that they are members of the CIA.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Most likely to hide their illegal "rendition" activities.

They will find other means to carry out their dirty work, now that this cat is out of the bag.



Times like these makes me ashamed to be an American.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
Most likely to hide their illegal "rendition" activities.

They will find other means to carry out their dirty work, now that this cat is out of the bag.



Times like these makes me ashamed to be an American.


So you don't know what they're up to, but have decided what it is anyway, and are ashamed to be an American because of it? What I find fascinating is that you have Americans trying feverishly to uncover and expose CIA operations, not even knowing what these missions are, but they are bound and determined to compromise them anyhow.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
So you don't know what they're up to, but have decided what it is anyway, and are ashamed to be an American because of it?

Isn't it amazing, those type of knee-jerk reactions?:shk:

What's also amusing is the implication that Bush knew about, or maybe even gave the order to, use the call signs.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Isn't it amazing, those type of knee-jerk reactions?:shk:

What's also amusing is the implication that Bush knew about, or maybe even gave the order to, use the call signs.


Resorting to the "bush knew it all" tactic again jsobecky? :shk: The CIA director is probably the one who authorized it and I think the CIA is granted authority to do these things by charter. Why is always bush that is responsible? :shk:


And all those whiney "Shamed to be American" types, keep providing aid and comfort to the enemy A**holes, see what you get. No wonder 9/11 happened. :shk:



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Unless I'm mistaken, I think you two are actually in agreement.
I believe this statement was being used sarcastically-"What's also amusing is the implication that Bush knew about, or maybe even gave the order to, use the call signs."

My gripe is with the types who don't see(or refuse to accept) the danger of certain groups and their plans towards the US. As a result, they've come to the conclusion that whatever the CIA is up to, it must be criminal or evil, and it's their duty to try to compromise the mission(which may in fact be innocuous, or it may be stopping some horrific plan in the works). To me, it's no different than discovering the mission plans for a military operation, and exposing them because one doesn't like the military, or thinks they're up to no good. This sort of misguided thinking prolongs wars and gets more Americans killed.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Last time I checked there were no such things as assigned "call signs". Airlines usually use their Flight number and all other aircraft use all of or a portion of their registration numbers. The real identification comes from an aircraft's transponder data anyway. I used to handle the radio for a friend who flew charter flights. In busy airspace I have changed "call signs" three and four times in the same flight to avoid confusion in "controlled airspace".



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I believe that this article (and therefore an ignorant reader) may be confusing an airline's Call sign with its identifier; which are two different things. The call sign used by Jetsgo over the radio was literally "Jetsgo" when the pilots communicated with Air Traffic Control.

There are two different agencies that assign individual identifiers for airlines. First is the IATA (International Air Transport Association) which is an industry lobby that represents airlines. Then there is the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) which provides regulatory control of aircraft outside the US (the FAA is the regulatory agency over aircraft within the US).

Jetsgo's IATA Identifier is SG while its ICAO identifier is JGO. These are NOT their callsigns but rather they are abreviated identifiers assigned by these agencies.

The impression I get from the article is that whomever is operating those aircraft is using the call sign "Jgo" ("Jay-go") when communicating with ATC over the radio. This has nothing to do with Jetsgo.

Other examples of US companies, their call sign, and ID's:

Company//ATC Call sign//IATA ID//ICAO ID

United Airlines//"United"//UA//UAL
American Airlines//"American"//AA//AAL
Airtran Airlines//"Airtran"//FL//TR

You can go to this IATA website and look this information up by typing the airline name in the field and selecting the country.

Regards.


[edit on 19-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
In busy airspace I have changed "call signs" three and four times in the same flight to avoid confusion in "controlled airspace".


Just for further clairification: Airline call signs are appended with a number. For example: "American 256" or "United 83" etc. These call signs never change during flight (more on this in a minute). Further more; a scheduled route will always have the same call sign and flight number. For example; if "American 256" is used for a flight between DFW and LAX; that same call sign and number will be used on that route every day, with only a couple exceptions such as perhaps weekends.

JIMC5499: What you were changing was the transponder code; something ATC will regularily ask the pilot to change during flight; especially under VFR (Visual Flight Rules).

A call sign changing during flight, especially for civilian aviation, is very rare. I fly professionally both military and civilian and can't think of a time I ever changed my call sign in flight. But I can think of one time when it did happen; which is also interesting trivia.

After John F Kennedy was shot the vice president (Lyndon B. Johnson) hopped on a military jet to go to Dallas. While in flight, Kennedy was officially pronounced dead and Johnson instantly became president. Subsequently, the call sign of his flight changed from "Air Force 2" to "Air Force 1".


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Resorting to the "bush knew it all" tactic again jsobecky? :shk: The CIA director is probably the one who authorized it and I think the CIA is granted authority to do these things by charter. Why is always bush that is responsible? :shk:

I believe I've been misunderstood. GT100FV had it right (his post followed yours):


Originally posted by GT100FV
Unless I'm mistaken, I think you two are actually in agreement.


I was actually referring to the implication made by ThePieMaN.

And I challenge you to find a post where I ever said "bush knew it all".



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Freedom_for_sum

Since you fly, maybe you can answer a question for me that I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer for:

Airliners have transponders, used to help ID and locate a plane. Why would a pilot ever turn off the plane's transponder?

[edit on 20-2-2007 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Airliners have transponders, used to help ID and locate a plane. Why would a pilot ever turn off the plane's transponder?


There is no reason, under normal circumstances, that a pilot would turn off the transponder during flight. Even when they aren't talking to ATC and are flying under VFR (Visual Flight Rules), pilots are required to "squawk" a code of 1200 (standard VFR code) so that ATC can separate IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) traffic from VFR traffic.

Pilots have been known to turn off their transponder, however, when they know they are flying somewhere they shouldn't be. They turn off the transponder so that ATC can't catch them doing something they're not supposed to be doing.

I believe one (or perhaps more) of the hijackers on 911 turned off the transponder to make it more difficult for ATC to track them. But even with the transponder turned off, ATC will usually get a "primary" return on their radar display which is basically a "dot" on the screen. But there won't be any of the information associated with it, such as altitude, that is normally provided by the transponder.

It's been awhile since I read this specific regulation; but I believe transponders are not required above 10,000 feet and while in airspace that's not congested (I'm purposely avoiding using reg-speak). But it's in every pilot's interest to use the transponder because it's a tool that improves safety.

I hope this answered your question.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Yes, thank you. And you guessed the reason I asked it. The hijackers on Flight 93 had turned off the transponders, and when I heard that, it surprised me that a pilot would actually have the capability to turn off a transponder.



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
...it surprised me that a pilot would actually have the capability to turn off a transponder.


I see.

The transponder, like any other electronic equipment, gets turned off on the "shutdown" checklist. Also, it's standard procedure to have the transponder off while on the ground (including while taxiing) so as not to clutter up the radar displays with aircraft that aren't in flight.

Sometimes, the transponder may malfunction and transmit incorrect information, such as altitude. This could have serious implications and ATC may request the pilot turn it off. That's why in the previous post I emphasized under normal circumstances and during flight as conditions where the pilot would rarely turn off the transponder. On the ground is a different matter and there are a whole host of reasons under abnormal situations where the pilot would have to turn off the transponder.

Being in the military I sometimes fly in formation. When we do this ATC will request the formation members to "stop squawk" or turn off the transponder while the flight lead will keep his on. This is also to reduce radar clutter.

So there's definitely a need for the pilot to have the ability to turn it off.

[edit on 20-2-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
The US government agencies and military really must think they are in total control of the world.

They have no respect for any other country's air space and are a law unto themselves, hoodwinking, lying and being puppet masters. Dictating the law and telling other world leaders when, why and how this or that will be done.

They continue to fester a feeling of ill will across the globe



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Freedom_for_sum



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join