KAL007 Coldwar Mystery

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:

:What did they mistake that airliner for anyway? A strategic bomber or what?
:And which of the enemies they were engaged with had bombers made by airbus?

If you don't know this then you don't know anything about the
incident. It is also clear that you don't know anything about radar.

The radar paint is not marked 'Airbus'.
I know that. I also did know someone working at a radar point in east germany.
And echoes do differ. Maybe not enough to tell an f14 from an f18 but a
big plane ought to have stood out.

The transponder block is supposed to tell you what is going on. It is
based on what the transponder on the aircraft does in response to the
radar paint.
Right. And did the airbus' transponder work?
Then they've done what's expected from a civilian airliner, which was the
issue I was responding to.

Greetings!
Volker

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:17:45 +0100, Volker Hetzer wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Volker Hetzer wrote:

:What did they mistake that airliner for anyway? A strategic bomber or what?
:And which of the enemies they were engaged with had bombers made by airbus?

If you don't know this then you don't know anything about the
incident. It is also clear that you don't know anything about radar.

The radar paint is not marked 'Airbus'.
I know that. I also did know someone working at a radar point in east germany.
And echoes do differ. Maybe not enough to tell an f14 from an f18 but a
big plane ought to have stood out.

The transponder block is supposed to tell you what is going on. It is
based on what the transponder on the aircraft does in response to the
radar paint.
Right. And did the airbus' transponder work?
Then they've done what's expected from a civilian airliner, which was the
issue I was responding to.

Greetings!
Volker


The US shot it down on purpose. That is clear. The airliner was not to blame
at all.

But of course it is only "barbaric" when somebody other than the USA does
the shooting. When the USA does it it is one of the following:

1. Collateral damage
2. A tragic accident.
3. The innocent victims fault.



Take your pick.

The USA never punishes its own war criminals. Even Lt Calley got off.

Volker Hetzer wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Volker Hetzer wrote:
:
: :What did they mistake that airliner for anyway? A strategic bomber or what?
: :And which of the enemies they were engaged with had bombers made by airbus?
:
: If you don't know this then you don't know anything about the
: incident. It is also clear that you don't know anything about radar.
:
: The radar paint is not marked 'Airbus'.
:
:I know that. I also did know someone working at a radar point in east germany.
:And echoes do differ. Maybe not enough to tell an f14 from an f18 but a
:big plane ought to have stood out.

Nope. They're both just a dot.

: The transponder block is supposed to tell you what is going on. It is
: based on what the transponder on the aircraft does in response to the
: radar paint.
:
:Right. And did the airbus' transponder work?

Yes, but that doesn't mean anything, as I explained in the part you
snipped. A military aircraft can look identical to a civilian
aircraft on transponder, as well.

:Then they've done what's expected from a civilian airliner, which was the
:issue I was responding to.

Except for the habit of Iranian aircraft not to answer radio
challenges at the time.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

Fred J. McCall kirjoitti:
Volker Hetzer wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:

Snip

:Then they've done what's expected from a civilian airliner, which was the
:issue I was responding to.

Except for the habit of Iranian aircraft not to answer radio
challenges at the time.

Admittedly I do not recall all that much of the incident, but I believe
that shortly after the killing there was some kind of explanation
according to which Vincennes mistook radio traffic between Iranian air
control and a fighter on the tarmac of a nearby air field to be
associated with the approaching radar echo.

If so, would Vincennes not have broadcasted their challenge on that
frequency? And wouldn't such challenge thus have been unheared or at
least categorized as something directed to other traffic by the crew of
the Airbus?

H Tavaila

In article , Harri Tavaila says...

Fred J. McCall kirjoitti:
Volker Hetzer wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:

Snip

:Then they've done what's expected from a civilian airliner, which was the
:issue I was responding to.

Except for the habit of Iranian aircraft not to answer radio
challenges at the time.

Admittedly I do not recall all that much of the incident, but I believe
that shortly after the killing there was some kind of explanation
according to which Vincennes mistook radio traffic between Iranian air
control and a fighter on the tarmac of a nearby air field to be
associated with the approaching radar echo.

If so, would Vincennes not have broadcasted their challenge on that
frequency? And wouldn't such challenge thus have been unheared or at
least categorized as something directed to other traffic by the crew of
the Airbus?


The Vincennes broadcast its challenges on two radio frequencies, 121.5 MHz
and 243 MHz. These are frequencies specifically set aside for this sort of
communication, precisely so that there will be no guesswork involved, and
the Airbus should have been monitoring 121.5 MHz.

The cockpit voice recorder from the Airbus was never recovered, so we don't
know whether the warning was recieved and ignored or not recieved at all.
It seems unlikely that anyone would ignore such a warning, whereas it is
fairly common and usually harmless for people to forget about guarding 121.5.
Either way, there was no response to the Vincenne's challenges, on either
frequency.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling kirjoitti:
In article , Harri Tavaila says...

Snip

If so, would Vincennes not have broadcasted their challenge on that
frequency? And wouldn't such challenge thus have been unheared or at
least categorized as something directed to other traffic by the crew of
the Airbus?

The Vincennes broadcast its challenges on two radio frequencies, 121.5 MHz
and 243 MHz. These are frequencies specifically set aside for this sort of
communication, precisely so that there will be no guesswork involved, and
the Airbus should have been monitoring 121.5 MHz.

According to

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/030788.htm
which is based on sources:
ICAO Adrep Summary 3/88 (#1)
ICAO Circular 260- AN/154 (27-51)
Aviation Disasters / D. Gero (200- 202)

the IR655 - being a civilian plain - did not monitor the Military Air
Distress frequency of 243 MHz . Seven challenges were issued on this
frequency.

According to the same source three challenges were issued on
International Air Distress frequency of 121.5 MHz once the plane was at
the distance of 40 miles (cutting it rather close I think).
Unfortunately the source does not say how the challenges were
formulated; expressions 'Iranian fighter' or 'Iranian F-14' are quoted
and could hardly be expected to be replied to. Expression 'Iranian
aircraft' possibly could - if it was the first expression to be used,
though it leaves open the question of how one should react to such an
open identification. If it was followed by something like: 'approcahing
radio beacon xx from direction yy at distance zz' a reply might possibly
be forthcoming - in about a minute or so, as I should think that it
might take some time to verify the applicability of the definition. Any
reference to the ship would of course be unidentifiable to a civilian plane.

Of course if the first challenges were issued to 'a fighter' and the
subsequent to 'a plane' the only reaction might be to continue to listen
as the dialogue/monologue would quite apparently be directed to
somebody else. But then, that would be sloppy radio protocol.

The cockpit voice recorder from the Airbus was never recovered, so we don't
know whether the warning was recieved and ignored or not recieved at all.

snip

A pity.

While searching the web I also ran into a claim that during the attack
the Vincennes was actually on Iranian waters and the US committee
looking into the incident had to edit out a couple of islands from the
maps in order to be able to claim otherwise. I think this sounds rather
implausible but would be interested to verify this. Unfortunately I
haven't been able to locate the report on line: if anybody should know
how to find this material (one would assume it is open for public
consumption) I should be most interested.

H Tavaila

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:31:37 +0200, Harri Tavaila
wrote:


snip

4th request

Please quit crossposting this thread to sci.crypt group.

Please remove sci.crypt from newsgroup crosspost list.

Thank you.

Harri Tavaila wrote:


While searching the web I also ran into a claim that during the attack
the Vincennes was actually on Iranian waters and the US committee
looking into the incident had to edit out a couple of islands from the
maps in order to be able to claim otherwise. I think this sounds
rather implausible but would be interested to verify this.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate the report on line: if
anybody should know how to find this material (one would assume it is
open for public consumption) I should be most interested.


That's based on a statement by Admiral William J. Crowe Jr., then
chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/...-19920701.html

Pat

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:14:41 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

6th request

Please quit crossposting this thread to sci.crypt group.

Please remove sci.crypt from newsgroup crosspost list.

Thank you.

On 6 Feb 2006 13:44:12 -0800, John Schilling
wrote:

snip

3rd request

Please quit crossposting this thread to sci.crypt group.

Please remove sci.crypt from newsgroup crosspost list.

Thank you.