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.

 

Many pics of tracking a Janet flight from LV to "Tonopah" (possibly Area 51)

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sunnybrae
 


Why would a 737 loaded with passengers from McCarran land at Pahute Mesa?




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Internet tracking started around 2002. I started logging the Janets then, though I didn't post the data until two years later. [Hey, why reveal a good secret.]
tracking

Later Passur came online. It uses what I believe is MLAT, so it could track aircraft as long as their receivers could get the signal.
Passur, Flightware, etc
The passur feed was eventually removed, probably because it actually did find aircraft going to Groom Lake like N105TB.

Janet scanner audio can be found here:
Janet scanner audio

In addition, you can get some scanner feeds around Vegas on the Live ATC network:
Live ATC

The live-military-mode-s.eu worth joining if you are into doing more than just tracking the Janets. For instance, there are two alphajet and two T-39s doing what I presume to be "rent-a-bogie" for Nellis Weapons School.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dogshark
 





Why would a 737 loaded with passengers from McCarran land at Pahute Mesa?


Pahute Mesa is owned by the DOE. They rarely allow Groom aircraft to land on their runways. Plus Pahute Mesa is only 5000ft.
Pahute Mesa

The DOE does allow Groom aircraft to use Desert Rock Airstrip. I heard a pilot request a touch and go there.

navigation database

The DOE has its own air traffic control called Mercury radio. Not that I have been in either tower (hah!), but from listening to the scanner, it is pretty obvious Mercury and the Groom tower have a direct link. For instance, when they launch a UAV from the AOF (new Yucca Lake facility), Mercury does the control, but Groom knows what they are launching.

In additon, fighter aircraft and occasionaly some civilian aircraft enter the range via Blackjack.

Range frequencies can be found here:
Nellis range frequencies



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that these tracking sites only work if there is an IFR flight plan filed for that flight. The Janet flights go off IFR to VFR when they cross over into the MOA, so the flight plan “ends” and the tracking drops.

There is a fun little mission in FSX that lets you fly a “janet” plane into A51 if you ever want to give it a try.


Also check this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Janets usually land at Groom Lake with a visual, but they leave LAS IFR. However, they also do land IFR once in a while. When they make the transition over the range, they are too high to drop to VFR, so I am pretty sure the transponder code and controlling authority is what makes them fall off the FAA feed.

The Beech janets sometimes fly VFR. Sometimes they file IFR, then change to VFR for the flight if a slot become available sooner. I gather the Beech flights are not scheduled.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


What I am saying though is that the FAA filed IFR flight plan stops when they enter the MOA, and so the civilian tracking stops along with it. Whether or not they change their transponder, or continue on IFR, those tracking sties will not follow past the FAA filed flight plan.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by gariac
 


What I am saying though is that the FAA filed IFR flight plan stops when they enter the MOA, and so the civilian tracking stops along with it. Whether or not they change their transponder, or continue on IFR, those tracking sties will not follow past the FAA filed flight plan.


If it was an IFR to VFR switch, we would see the IFR landings. But that isn't the case.

It is Restricted airspace, not a MOA, but I know what mean.

I've seen the IFR to VFR switch to elude tracking. N105TB did an IFR to VFR switch at PMD, making it look like they landed there on flightaware, but in reality went to Point Mugu.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
If it was an IFR to VFR switch, we would see the IFR landings. But that isn't the case.

Its not handled by the FAA, so I don't see why we would. Those flight trackers use the FAA's flight plans which are public record.


Originally posted by gariac
It is Restricted airspace, not a MOA, but I know what mean.

Never bought an air map of that area, so I'll take your word for it. I assumed since its a testing and bombing range that it would be listed as a military operations area.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Just to be clear here, MOAs are not restricted airspace. Civilians can fly through active MOAs under VFR and can be routed if IFR. You hear Nellis Control warn the civilian pilots "fighter aircraft at all altitudes" or something to that effect.

The MOAs associated with the NTTR go out to Utah. If aircraft couldn't fly the MOAs, it would be quite a hardship for rural areas.

As an aside, civilian flights routinely fly through restricted airspace with permission. UPS and Fedex go through R-2508 often to save fuel. Most of the air cargo planes in both fleets are ADS-B equipped, so you might catch a "yellow" flight on fr24 if you are up at stupid O clock. Once in a while you will catch a civilian flight over the TTR. My guess is because commercial air carriers have strict schedules, you won't find United flying over restricted airspace since being early is as bad as being late.

The FAA radar can see into the range. I have a copy of a screen printout somewhere. I believe the Bald Mountain facility is a joint surveillance site (JSS), but unlike other JSS facilities, the Bald Mountain facility isn't documented.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Florasaurus
 


It came out of Tonopah, and back to Las Vegas. Once it gets into military airspace it goes to Mode 1, 2, 4 or 5 which are all military with no civilian counterpart to them (usually they use either 1 or 2, but IIRC they prefer 1).

There's still quite a bit going on at Tonopah, including the F-117 storage.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


aircraft documents

Again to clear up any misconceptions, the Janets do not use military transponders.

You can inspect the equipment used on the aircraft at the above link. The 737s are the old ones. I was supposed to get a set of documents for the new fleet, but well...I guess I will have to buy them.

I have personally tracked the janets landing at Groom. Nothing special here folks. If you have a mode-s receiver you can track them right to the ground.

They use a 033x squawk. Possibly that is the filter.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Off topic, but have you guys tracked flights to/from Base Camp? What's that one about?



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dogshark
 


Because Base Camp isn't exactly denied territory, there are plenty of photos of aircraft at Base Camp. Regarding internet tracking, the only thing Base Camp related is N168D filing to Lincoln County (1L1) but not landing there. Mostly likely the plane went to Base Camp, but you can't be sure without photographs.

Base Camp doesn't have an ICAO identifier in the FAA system, so it can't show up on the internet.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Just another BS government black project that expects us to foot the bill and keep us in the dark.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Makes sense. Thanks for the info!



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dogshark
 


You might be interested in this thread. It might be for a Base Camp notam.

base camp notam?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FosterVS
 


And you know this how? To say definitively without saying "I don't think there is an S4" you sounded pretty confident so you must have some direct knowledge that is doesn't exist amirite?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by smarterthanyou
 


There is no evidence that S4 exists. One guy said it does over twenty years ago. Since then no evidence of the base has ever surfaced. So, it is reasonable to state that the base - like unicorns and dragons - does not exist. It's a myth, a tale. A story.

Here's a basic logic lesson: if one makes an extraordinary claim, he/she has to prove it is true, or at least provide compelling evidence to back up the claim. The burden of proof is never on the skeptic.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I think that if s-4 exists, he was talking about yucca. It's certainly not at papoose. I've flown over that lake more times than I can count and nothings there.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
As a follow up to flightradar24, they have now added multilateralization (MLAT) to their service.

To understand MLAT in some detail, check out:
MLAT

In simpler terms, MLAT is a means to detect aircraft that do use mode-s but not ADS-B. Or in even simpler terms, you can track any aircraft with mode-s even if it does not report its position.

To see planes on flightradar24 using MLAT, you need to be a premium member. As far as I know, you get that status if you supply flightradar24 a feed. To see planes detected only with MLAT (as opposed to the FAA feed and/or ADS-B), you need to filter the results by showing only "radar" that is T-MLAT. In my test today, I saw one plane via MLAT, and it was over Norway.

So now in theory, we could track the Janet flights right to Groom Lake if they leave their mode-s transponder on. But before you get too excited, flightradar24 would need 4 receivers that can "see" the Janets. Given the terrain of their flight corridor and the lack of private land to locate receivers, I think the odds of this happening are zero. Certainly there would be no chance to see them touch down. Other than on Tikaboo, it is hard to get a L-band signal like mode-s coming from the base at ground level. From high spots around the range, I can track the Janets to about 1000ft AGL. I'm guessing I could get to a few hundred feet from the Power Line Overlook. [I hate to scan from that location because the power lines make noise.] But there is no way flightradar24 will ever have four receivers in a high viewing location simply because there is no infrastructure to support the internet connection or even a power source. Now I suppose they could use Verizon data services and solar power, but there is still the problem of finding a "host" for the hardware.

While on the topic of tracking the Janets, I have noticed the FAA feed (which is what flightaware and others use) has been showing the flights to the Tonopah Test Range going over the range rather than over route 95. This may reflect reduced activity (fighter or test aircraft) over the range. But the FAA feed is not always trustworthy, so this may not be reality.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join