Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on December 06, 2005, 02:05:50 AM
-
http://www.kyw1060.com/news_archives_detail.cfm?newsitemid=50753
Pilot Reports 'Missile' Fired at Jetliner Near LAX (11/28/05)
FBI agents and Homeland Security officials spent the weekend investigating the report of a possible missile fired at an American Airlines plane taking off from Los Angeles International Airport.
Sources tell ABC News the pilot of American Airlines Flight 621, en route to Chicago, radioed air traffic controllers after takeoff from LAX. He told them a missile had been fired at the aircraft and missed.
The plane was over water when the pilot said he saw a smoke trail pass by the cockpit.
FBI agents believe it was a flare or a bottle rocket, but say they may never know if that's what it actually was.
-
Hmm, flare or bottle rocket. What would you say is the max altitude of one of them?
I've never headed out of LAX over the water but I would venture to guess that if that plane was over water it was likely higher than a bottle rocket or flare could travel.
-
Flare or bottle rocket. HHHMMM what's wrong with this supposition.
First what was the altitude of the airliner when it was passed by the aleged bottle rockt or flare?
Secondly what was the speed of the aircraft when it was passed by the object?
I haven't seen ANY bottle rocket that would PASS an airliner even on lift off from take off. The bird was over water at the time so it should have had more than a couple hundred feet altitude and definately more than 120 knotts.
Flare??? Maybe but again it depends on the answers to the above listed questions as well as the angle of passing. Rear to front or below to above, front to rear?
-
Any of these could easily be mistaken for a missile: http://www.tripoli.org/ (http://www.tripoli.org/) .
Hell, some are modeled after real missiles...
You are supposed to only launch rockets like those under controlled conditions, but some people just can't wait to launch a newly finished rocket...
Terror
-
If it were a missile how the hell do you miss a big arse jetliner!!!!????
What kind of missile was that,RPG?lol
-
Now this...is my type of clustered engine.
All black powder motors, probally F's from the arrangement.
Count them all - figure at about 80 Newton second impulse per engine. Big big number, and risky. I blew up a 1/3 scale PAC-2 rocket that weighed about 15 lbs with a black powder that had a motor casing failure.
I tried counting 1 of the clusters at the top left and got lost at 51.
Wolf(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0782.jpg)
-
OK, here's what does not compute for me...
Professional airline pilot can't tell the difference between a bottle rocket and a surface -to-air missile?? Right. :huh
Professional airline pilot can't see the difference in trajectory between a flare (lobbed) and a missile (linear tracking). Right. :rolleyes:
In my limited experience with those who build and fly high-powered amateur rockets, they are extremely careful and diligent people, who would never contemplate a high-power launch anywhere near an active airport. Possible, yes...probable, no.
I don't know anything about this incident, or even if it is real, but I cannot believe that a SAM and a bottle rocket could ever, EVER be mistaken for each other...by anyone! Seems patently absurd to me. However, I CAN believe that if a shoulder-mounted man-portable SAM was fired at an American commercial airliner, that the public would be spoon-fed whatever pap necessary to prevent a panic, political backlash and the crushing economic blow of another general airline shutdown.
Could you imagine our fearless leaders trying to explain how rogue military equipment was smuggled in, transported and successfully employed after almost 5 years of huge investments in "Homeland Security"?
Like I said, I don't know what really happened...but a bottle-rocket? Just how stupid do we look, anyway?
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
-
Interesting note - I just checked that weblink again - the story was removed.
-
Wolfala I can't quite grasp the size of the rockets on there. Can you post a bigger high-res pic?
-
ushildvl,
If you don't see the object, there is almost no way to tell at a glance what's making a particular smoke trail.
The LAX departure, if I recall correctly, goes over water. Some commercially available signaling flares can exceed 1500 ft in altitude, travel quickly and may look like a missile, and leave a smoke trail that has just that kind of "wiggle" that looks like a guided missile, especially if the winds shift at all near the ground.
So yea, any pilot including a military pilot, seeing something bright with a smoke trail flashing past, will probably have no idea exactly what it was.
If they were over water, my initial guess would be that some drunk tard in a boat (Where was SOB that weekend?) fired his flaregun at the airliner trying to be cute. Or it could even have been a boater in distress firing the gun, although that's fairly farfetched unless once again the guy was drunk because only a moron would fire a flare at an aircraft on takeoff.
If it was a missile, yikes. But chances are if something did actually happen, it was just a flare or something like that. Remember, uber-tards have been shining high powered lasers at landing airlines for years now, so some moron launching a marine flare at a plane on takeoff is certainly not an unusually unexpected event.
On a good note, there are at least 2 commercial variants of military missile defense systems being fast-tracked through R&D and certification, so hopefully high-risk airlines will have an affordable response to any potential missile threat in the next couple of years.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Now this...is my type of clustered engine.
All black powder motors, probally F's from the arrangement.
Count them all - figure at about 80 Newton second impulse per engine. Big big number, and risky. I blew up a 1/3 scale PAC-2 rocket that weighed about 15 lbs with a black powder that had a motor casing failure.
I tried counting 1 of the clusters at the top left and got lost at 51.
Wolf[
Counted 43 top right.
But how in the world do you ignite all of them at once?!
-BM
-
You make a good point, eagl. In fact, I can picture the flare scenario you described...low-vis, low alt over water and a questionable view angle...could be hard to make a determination. Especially since the trail is wobbly as you pointed out...I've seen that myself. However...wouldn't the velocity have some bearing on the observation? Perhaps it's a very subtle matter of timing...'when' you see can be as important as 'what' you see. See?
However...no one will convince me that a SAM and a bottle rocket are easy to confuse. Nope...just cannot buy into that one.
I'm ashamed to admit that I really didn't properly consider the uber-tard factor when first responding. Always a possibility, and a very plausible source of an errant flare. Especially so since one of my favorite mantras goes as follows; "Remember, the two most common elements in the Universe are Hydrogen...and Stupidity" :D
Since Wolf pointed out that the 'news'story seems to have vanished...it could be just another example of true professional journalism. You know, where the reporter and editor publish what sells, rather than fact. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Unfortunately, I can sure believe that such a thing could happen, and that we would be lied to 'for the public good', but that's another thread entirely.
I, too, have seen some references to the commercial anti-missile system development. I'm of mixed opinions right now...good thing if you're in a plane that just became a target. Could the presence of them tempt more religious lunatics to try converting people by the plane-load? Dunno. Got to add a ton to costs though. And..would not one of these systems require essentially loading warheads onto a commercial aircraft? I don't recall the details of the systems under development, so I truly don't know. Maybe somebody here has more direct experience.
But, bottle-rockets? STILL no way. :rolleyes:
New story..now I'm stickin' to this one.
-
The 2 systems I read about are IR laser turret designs that have no expendables. The system consists of high resolution UV sensors to detect launch and exhaust plumes, and a turret containing an imaging sensor (IR or multi-spectrum) and a laser. If it's anything like the military systems discussed in AW&ST, the sensors match the incoming signature against a threat database (which is at the very least proprietary information) and then the laser fires a sequence specifically designed to defeat the type of missile it thinks is heading it's way.
Yea, it'll cost a bunch but it looks like at least one of the systems only takes a few days to install and the turret pod can be removed and replaced in about an hour. More importantly, my amature analysis of the required FAA certification is that it'll take about as much paperwork to certify as an inflight coffemaker since it's interaction with the aircraft involves a power hookup, an on-off switch, and maybe some status lights. The drag penalty should be minimal and the whole system weighs about 500 lbs.
Regarding the article disappearing from the news site without any warning, the so-called "patriot act" recently renewed by congress includes provisions that allow the homeland security department to not only censor anyone or any media source, but it also has provisions that make it a felony to even mention the fact that you've been censored or asked for information. If you violate any of these rules, you can be chucked in jail without charges because the charges would be just as classified as the information they censored. And if you ask to read the wording of the law that says they can do this, you'll be told that the law is classified in the interest of national security.
It's unconstitutional as hell but that's the sorry state of the US right now. It's no wonder the BATF is trying to confiscate guns... They're afraid US citizens will realize what's going on and revolt, and I don't really blame them for being scared.
But that's another thread...
:noid
-
Originally posted by Terror
Any of these could easily be mistaken for a missile: http://www.tripoli.org/ (http://www.tripoli.org/) .
Hell, some are modeled after real missiles...
You are supposed to only launch rockets like those under controlled conditions, but some people just can't wait to launch a newly finished rocket...
Terror
Terror!!!
Where you been, man...Oh, wait, I been the one MIA...email me at corsair_pilot_mn@yahoo.com
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Now this...is my type of clustered engine.
All black powder motors, probally F's from the arrangement.
Count them all - figure at about 80 Newton second impulse per engine. Big big number, and risky. I blew up a 1/3 scale PAC-2 rocket that weighed about 15 lbs with a black powder that had a motor casing failure.
I tried counting 1 of the clusters at the top left and got lost at 51.
Wolf
There are 7 groups of 44 engines each which brings the total to 308 engines.
To me they look like regular Estes D sized engines. I found them online for around $4.23 each. If they are F like you say, then the price would probably be a bit higher.
$4.23 X 308 = $1302.84
One thousand three hundred two dollars and eighty four cents per launch.
That's a lot of dough, not to mention a lot of time and effort for a single launch.
would I like to see it set alight? You bet! :cool:
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Now this...is my type of clustered engine.
All black powder motors, probally F's from the arrangement.
Count them all - figure at about 80 Newton second impulse per engine. Big big number, and risky. I blew up a 1/3 scale PAC-2 rocket that weighed about 15 lbs with a black powder that had a motor casing failure.
I tried counting 1 of the clusters at the top left and got lost at 51.
44 in each cluster :)
No need to count em individually. Long axis first row is 5, +1for each row. Add forst 3 rows, double it, add middle row.
2X(5+6+7) +8 = 44
-
Originally posted by eagl
The LAX departure, if I recall correctly, goes over water. Some commercially available signaling flares can exceed 1500 ft in altitude, travel quickly and may look like a missile, and leave a smoke trail that has just that kind of "wiggle" that looks like a guided missile, especially if the winds shift at all near the ground.
So yea, any pilot including a military pilot, seeing something bright with a smoke trail flashing past, will probably have no idea exactly what it was.
eagl,
If you were in a fighter and experienced this would you dump chaff/flares and go evasive or call "2" on the radio and ask for his assesment? :D
Regards
Sun
-
I couldn't resist
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0856.jpg)
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0860.jpg)
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0861.jpg)
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0862.jpg)
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/IMG_0863.jpg)
King noodle award
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/max-q_2.jpg)
Beginning...
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/max-q_3.jpg)
Ending... :(
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/max-q_4.jpg)
Memories of my rockets ending
(http://www.tripoli.org/photos/images/mw081798.jpg)
-
I was at LDRS 20 and got to see a 12 foot V2 (250+ lbs) take off, have a CATO in one of the four engines, tilt towards and fly over the crowd before impact 20 feet past the last parked car.
It was awesome.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
44 in each cluster :)
No need to count em individually. Long axis first row is 5, +1for each row. Add forst 3 rows, double it, add middle row.
2X(5+6+7) +8 = 44
Center cluster has 52
total of all clusters is 316
LOL that'll give it some giddyap
-
Warheads on shoulder carried SAMs are too small to bring a large airliner…. Now for a 737 sized plane I can see a problem arousing.
-
Post more pics, my computer hasn't exploded yet... :p
-
Russian: MANPADS usually don't destroy aircraft through raw force, usually they do so by hitting them with a 'shotgun blast' of shrapnel with the intent of disrupting enough systems that the aircraft fails. Double points if it compromises fuel tanks or engines and causes secondary explosions.
An SA-7 could take out a 747, for instance, if it hit an inboard engine, caused it to explode while compromising the inboard fuel tank, igniting the fireball, and then losing the affected wing. It'd be a lucky shot, but perfectly possible.
When MANPADS are succesfully used against civilian liners (and it will happen eventually), it will probably be two or three being used at once on a plane that has just taken off.
Regarding the LAX departures, it's over the ocean, yes, but a car stopped on Sandpiper or Vista Del Mar could unload a pair of shooters, they could fire their loads without any witnesses, and be driving before the plane hits the water.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Russian: MANPADS usually don't destroy aircraft through raw force, usually they do so by hitting them with a 'shotgun blast' of shrapnel with the intent of disrupting enough systems that the aircraft fails. Double points if it compromises fuel tanks or engines and causes secondary explosions.
An SA-7 could take out a 747, for instance, if it hit an inboard engine, caused it to explode while compromising the inboard fuel tank, igniting the fireball, and then losing the affected wing. It'd be a lucky shot, but perfectly possible.
When MANPADS are succesfully used against civilian liners (and it will happen eventually), it will probably be two or three being used at once on a plane that has just taken off.
I remember reading of few instances where a S-SAM hit an airplane and it turned around and landed on a same field as it just taken off. No news articles come to mind when an airline got hit and failed to land. Shrapnel does cause damage, but not enough to cause a catastrophic damage for the wing, and fuel, if it lights, gives pilot around 1-2 minutes to land. I do not know about US pilots, but Soviet pilots were required to land in less then 80 seconds for Tu134, since 80 seconds is the time it takes to burn through control surfaces. (Ref about Tu134: sukhoi.ru)
-
Originally posted by Russian
I remember reading of few instances where a S-SAM hit an airplane and it turned around and landed on a same field as it just taken off. No news articles come to mind when an airline got hit and failed to land. Shrapnel does cause damage, but not enough to cause a catastrophic damage for the wing, and fuel, if it lights, gives pilot around 1-2 minutes to land. I do not know about US pilots, but Soviet pilots were required to land in less then 80 seconds for Tu134, since 80 seconds is the time it takes to burn through control surfaces. (Ref about Tu134: sukhoi.ru)
DHL out of Baghdad November 2003
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
DHL out of Baghdad November 2003
Yeah....but it landed.
http://www.airwaypioneers.com/DHLBaghdad.htm
(I do remember stories from afgan...when they didn't... )
-
A Hawker business jet also was hit by a SAM in Africa. Returned and landed safely.
-
That's what I was thinking was one of those large model rockets but i'm no where near sure on the max altitude of them, I think I heard they can almost get to the atmosphere or somewhere in that area. That's just from memory thoIugh, could be completely wrong.
-
What if I told you that your ears are of such immense height that they're in the atmosphere too? :)
-
Originally posted by Golfer
What if I told you that your ears are of such immense height that they're in the atmosphere too? :)
:lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Sundowner,
I can't give you a full answer, but it would involve countermeasures, maneuvering, radio calls, crew coordination, and if possible a weapons release.
-
While it wasn't a SAM of any type, the concorde was brought down by just a little bit of FOD in the wrong place. It landed too, but not in a good way. It's silly to think a SAM could not do major damage to a civilian aircraft especially on takeoff with full fuel and load. All it takes is a hit in the right spot. Compromising hydraulics and that plane would be practically unmanageable and a good example is the flight that terminated in Sioux City.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Sundowner,
I can't give you a full answer, but it would involve countermeasures, maneuvering, radio calls, crew coordination, and if possible a weapons release.
Rgr that bud,
Was kinda trying to be a bit tongue in cheek with ya.:)
Im an old F-4, F-16 crew dog here.
Thanks for the job you guys do.
Sir
Sun
-
Originally posted by Golfer
What if I told you that your ears are of such immense height that they're in the atmosphere too? :)
ROFLMAO!!! :rofl
-
December 05, 2005
Update On the American Airlines LAX Contrail Sighting Story
As regular readers know, I've been working the story about a pilot who saw a mysterious contrail after departing LAX.
This morning I received an email from Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American Airlines. He told me that AA doesn't make their frontline employees available for interviews. However, he did provide further information on the sighting:
- Flight #612 was at 13,000 feet altitude - 7-10 miles offshore.
- Cloud ceiling was at 4-5,000 feet (someone on the ground or on a boat
wouldn't have been able to see the aircraft)
- Captain saw straight vertical rocket contrail up to about 6,000 feet
- Rocket was approximately 3-4 miles away from flight #612
- That equals a horizontal separation of about 4 miles and a vertical
separation of well over a mile.
- The captain never used the word "missile" and never believed the
aircraft was a target of the rocket.
This official version bears small relationship to the stonewalling I got from the FBI, or to the initial reports - in fact, all the reports - that appeared in the mainstream media.
http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006220.php#006220 (http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006220.php#006220)
Best Regards,
Cement
-
ATC recording link:
It was American 612
FLIGHT: AA #612 (NOT #621 as incorrectly reported)
DATE: November 26, 2005 (NOT November 28, 2005 as originally and incorrectly reported)
TIME: Departure from LAX at 12:50 PST (en route to ORD)
TIME INCIDENT: 12:52 PST
LOC: Approx 6600ft above pacific South/South-West of LAX
Approx 28:30 sec into the large recording.
http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kont/KONT-SoCal-Nov-26-05-1530.mp3
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/Nov262005AA612.mp3
(http://members.cox.net/tomguyfr/images/Flt612-LAX-11-26-05-a.gif)
-
eagl,
I thought the only lasers of sufficient wattage to be destructive were pretty hefty chemical systems, that currently require a 747 to carry? I would imagine a commercially viable package would have to occupy only a few cubic feet at most, no? Not to mention the enormous power consumption.
Have there been improvements lately? I ask in all seriousness, as I can't say I make a study of the things...just what I pick up when I come across it.
It's a shame we've even got to worry about this crap.
On the other hand...maybe we should sell the terrorists some of them rocket-powered toilets...tell 'em they're secret, one-man assault spacecraft.
:p
-
Having heard those recordings, I now reaffirm my bull**t meter readings on the bottle rocket scenario.
I still don't know what it was, obviously, but tweren't no bottle-rocket.
I have spoken. ;)
-
Originally posted by USHilDvl
eagl,
I thought the only lasers of sufficient wattage to be destructive were pretty hefty chemical systems, that currently require a 747 to carry? I would imagine a commercially viable package would have to occupy only a few cubic feet at most, no? Not to mention the enormous power consumption.
They're not destructive lasers, they just disrupt the IR sensor head so that it can't maintain a lock on the target.
-
Hmmm, I wonder if it could have been something launched from Catalina; that's more than 14 miles SW of LAX (not sure how many), but in the general vicinity.
-
They said 1/2 way between us and the coastline - so Catalina is not only on the wrong side of the aircraft (actually off the nose by nearly 25 miles), but it is nearly 4 times the linear distance from the coastline.
The report was made abeam Zamperini, which is south of LAX, and North of Santa Catalina VOR.