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.

 

BETTY ONG / FLIGHT 11 Was A Mock Hijacking Exercise.

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Swampfox,

I read up a few posts just after I got finished typing my latest...

You are correct, regarding the 'cooperation' point...I referred before to a 'common strategy', without going into details...but that was ONE of the techniques. Kudos!




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Only to get people landed safely, and no other reason for co-operation. That came from at least one highly experienced pilot. Pilots are not going to give up their seats. Unless someone completely incapacitates them and the co-pilots. Then mightily struggles to get the dead or near dead pilots and co-pilots out of their seats in a very cramped cockpit.

First, they have to know how to fly the plane as well as the pilots and co-pilots. Not so with the alleged motley neophyte aeronautics crews of hijackers.

You can insist, on hearsay of US bureaucrats alone, that the alleged motley crews of hijackers were experts. But you and others have yet to provide certified information on that. Nothing coming from bureaucrats can be proved certified. They have to protect the untruths in the "official" reports is why nothing they present is valid.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Isn't that rather apples and oranges in the case of 9/11? If not, how is it not?

What you are describing is an employee the flight crew knew. Not so on 9/11.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


IvanZana,

This is again a misconception regarding the 'hijacking' codes being typed in by a Flight Attendant.

You are half correct, about it being a 'four-digit' code...but it is done in the cockpit!! NOTHING in the cabin will connect to ATC...unless you knew their direct number and used an airphone (with the appropriate credit card) to call them. Or, at a low altitude, your cellphone...which, by the way, do work below a certain altitude...

IF, and this is a big IF...some air carriers have implemented a system whereby a cabin crewmember can use a discrete code from any airphone in the cabin to notify the Company's Operations directly...then that would be as a direct result of events on 9/11. And a good idea, IMO.

[spelling]

[edit on 15-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 15-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Who turned off the transponders before punching in the 4-digit hijack code? The pilots? I do not believe that and will never believe that.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Isn't that rather apples and oranges in the case of 9/11? If not, how is it not?

What you are describing is an employee the flight crew knew. Not so on 9/11.


Sorry, Orion, had to pull your full quote because I'm not sure of your exact question?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Flight crews have to have credit cards to call back to the FAA center? Since when? It is like calling 911 free call on any cell phone, when we used to get charged by the minute over call plan minutes for every call made except 911. The cheapest plan we had was 75 minutes, plus any roaming charges, for over $25.00/m. $13.99/m for a first year contract IF we belonged to AAA.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your analogy of the Fed-ex employee. Apples and oranges for analogy to 9/11.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Cell phones can certainly interfere with instrument panels and radio waves of pilots trying to get through to the center in emergency situations. Unless, planes are equipped with cell phone tech. Which they were not in 2001. Boeing just started to offer cell phone tech in 2006. I posted information, in one of these discussions, to that effect. Some of those alleged planes dated back to 1983 manufacture. Others manufactured in the early 1990s. Airport instructions have always been to shut off all cell phones upon starting to taxi.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Do you actually think any pilot will give up a plane without a fight, and be herded with passengers to the back of any plane?


I can give you two examples of copilots giving up their seats and leaving the cockpit if you would like.

All Nippon Airways Flight

Nishizawa used a knife to force the flight attendant to let him into the cockpit.

He then made 34-year old copilot Kazayuki Koga leave the cockpit, remaining in the cockpit with captain Naoyuki Nagashima, who managed to notify ATC about the hijacking. He then stabbed Nagashima in the chest and took control of the plane, at one point descending to an altitude of 300 meters. Wiki

The hijacker had no flight training with the exception of home computer home flight simulators. Sound familiar? Except for the no training part.

Ethiopian Airlines 961

They beat up the copilot and threw him out of the cockpit. Link



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

Modern cellphones (and I am going to be lambasted for this) do not interfere in a significant way on modern jets, even in 2001. The only possible exception was, if a person using a mobile phone was close enough to the Localizer antenna (in the tail) during an Instrument Approach, then the Localizer signal could be affected. Mobiles do not interfere with Communications...comm is on a frequency of between 118 and 136 Mhz. Instrument Landing Systems operate on a frequency of between 108 and 111 Mhz. (I am referring to the Localizer there...not sure what frequency the Glideslope is on).

Some earlier phones might have caused intermittent disruption in the 108-111 Mhz band, if close to the antenna.

Modern cell towers are designed to not transmit upwards, anyway. So, a mobile won't work at, say...31,000 feet. But (and don't get caught!!) a cellphone will work in flight...and if you have an older phone and the weather is bad and you want to use it during the approach...well, then it's YOUR fault if the airplane has to 'miss' the approach and divert to the alternate!!



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Boone, regarding your most recent...never heard of those!

Sheesh...would have been good for our recurrent training modules, in hindsight...

Am still waiting to see what responses I get regarding the FedEx incident..actually, 'accident' under NTSB guidelines.

[adding]...oh! The Ethiopian Airlines hijacking...saw the ditching video, didn't know about the drama of the take-over...

For those who do not know, the Ethiopian airplane was a B767-200. The hijackers were not bent on suicide...but they were vicious, and stupid. The airplane eventually suffered from fuel starvation, and the remaining pilot attempted a ditching along a beach...didn't go so well.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Depends on what you mean by "modern jets". Manufactured when? In 2006, when Boeing made the announcement to offer cell phone technology on their planes manufactured as of the day of announcement? Or before the planes begin to take off or are sitting still after landing?

Few people were installing the cell phone tech prior to 2006. Mostly privately owned jets ordered by wealthy people had that tech installed during or after manufactruing.

The same reason cell phones, without the tech, could not be used once the plane was in motion, is the same reason they cannot be used in hospitals either.

The information I provide, on cell phones in planes, has always come from experts in cell phone technology. The experts said cell phones could not effectively be used in planes in 2001. They also listed the reasons why airports would tell people to turn off their cell phone before boarding, and not to use them until leaving the plane.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, haven't you been on an american air carrier lately?

Almost all of them now say it is OK to use mobile phones after touch down and while taxiing in. The admonishment to turn them off after the cabin door closes, and the push-back begins is because of the Safety Demo!

Say, you are on an airplane, and you've pushed back, and of course, the Safety Demo starts almost immediately, as it should...now, there is a long taxi delay before take-off. Guess what? We will make a PA allowing the use of phones...while stopped, and parked.

The use of mobiles after landing is a recent development...makes sense because everyone is anxious to talk after a flight. It is a compromise, with no safety implications...

editing to add...yes, cell phones could be used in 2001, as I pointed out, when the airplane had descended below a certain altitude. In the case of UA93, or even the other three airplanes (I saw one transcript that seemed to indicate the hijackers talking, in Arabic, about setting the Altitude Setting in the MCP to 7000 feet, not sure which flight) but especially UA 93, since it was way behind 'schedule'...people could use their personal cellphones. The hijackers knew to turn off the transponders...that meant there was NO altitude info being sent to ATC computers. Next, they would eventually descend, earlier than in normal operations, but they weren't that experienced, they were used to altitudes of 10,000 feet and below.
Point to add...some pilots will point out the 'Altimeter Settings' being off...well, above 18,000 we use a 'standard' setting of 29.92 inches, or in other countries, 1012 mb. Altimeters are reset according to local atmospheric conditions...but these guys didn't care about that, they were flying on a clear day, and looking out the windows at their targets.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No. What was the manufacture date? Or when did was the tech installed? Before or after manufacture if older than the last quarter of 2006? I did ask all that in a prior post. I also explained why cell phones could not be used in 2001 without the cell phone tech.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No. What was the manufacture date? Or when did was the tech installed? Before or after manufacture if older than the last quarter of 2006? I did ask all that in a prior post. I also explained why cell phones could not be used in 2001 without the cell phone tech.


Sorry, Orion...your question escapes me. As far as I remember, my cell phone worked quite well in 2001...

As I said before, there were concerns about interference with the Localizer antenna. Ever wondered why you can't use an FM radio onboard?? Look at the frequency band of FM...88 to 108 Mhz. Remember, I said, that Localizers (and, for that matter, Low Altitude VORs) operate in the 108 to 111 Mhz spectrum. Problem is, old FM receivers could also radiate and cause interference...this is something that stems from decades ago, but the ban still remains. Hey, it's the Government!

Just to clarify, if you think there is a problem with verbal comm...VHF comm starts at 118 Mhz, up to 136 Mhz. Next is UHF, but that's used by the military. FYI, freq 121.5 is the Emergency frequency (referred to as 'guard' in some transcripts).

It is now common to always have Comm2 on 121.5 for monitoring purposes. That way, if communications are lost on the primary ATC frequency, they can always call you on 'guard'...and if you are intercepted in flight, they will also attempt to call you on 121.5

We have long used this technique when over-water, but it is now SOP domestically as well.

**adding---an after thought. Since I mentioned over water, obviously VHF is limited to line-of-sight reception. SO, we use 'HF', lower on the radio spectrum, in the Khz range. Nowadays, of course, most airplanes dispatched overseas have Satellite links....and GPS....so although sometimes you have to use the HF to make position reports, depending on what controlling authority is responsible for the airspace you are in, thanks to GPS we know where we are...and thanks to the satellite links to ACARS (or in the case of my airline, we could call Dispatch ON the satellite) we are rarely out of touch.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


On the ground or in the air? If in the air, what altitude and did you have permission to use it after the plane started to taxi?

I did specify under what conditions cell phones would most probably operate in 2001, and when they were allowed to be used on planes.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Sorry, Orion, was typing.

In 2001, it was a blanket rule...phones off when all cabin doors were closed. Only a few years ago, did rules lighten up to allow cell phone usage after landing. I think it was a marketing thing, a customer service thing...and the Feds approved, so there ya go!



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What does "the rules lightened up" mean? Could you be more specific concerning "several years ago"?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


What does "the rules lightened up" mean? Could you be more specific concerning "several years ago"?


"....several years ago...." should read "....a few years ago......"




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join